CIT v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd.

190 ITR 626High Court1991#4818 most cited

What is CIT v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. authority for?

When a tax treaty conflicts with the Income Tax Act, the treaty provisions apply to the extent they are beneficial to the assessee. However, if the treaty does not provide for a specific benefit, such as the set-off of losses, that benefit cannot be claimed under the Act.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. · section 90(2) · tax treaty · beneficial to assessee · Income Tax Act · set off of losses · treaty interpretation · double taxation avoidance agreement

Sections most often in play

Section 13(4)Section 90(2)Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(a)Section 115A(1)(a)(iiaa)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Issues it is cited on

section 90(2)beneficial ownertax treatypermanent establishmentsection 90non-residentdouble taxationfinal assessment ordersection 24draft assessment orderprevious yeartransfer

Judgments citing CIT v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd.

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 340/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Essar Com Limited, vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(2), 10, Frere Felix De Valois Street, New Delhi. Post Louis, Mauritius. (PAN :AABCE6655R) Essar Communications Limited, vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(2), 10, Frere Felix De Valois Street, New Delhi. Post Louis, Mauritius. (PAN : AABCE7190F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate Shri Hiten Thakkar, Advocate Shri Anand Jain, CA REVENUE BY :Shri N. Venkatraman, AS…

ABU DHABI COMMERCIAL BANK PJSC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3404/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Pjsc Dcit (International Taxation)- Wework India Management Private 1(1)(1) 5Th Floor, Room No. 517, Limited Vs. 2Nd Floor, Express Towers, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Ranath Goenka Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaaca 4216 B (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali
Section 143(3)

…he Treaty does not provide for set off of loss, the assessee cannot claim such benefit by referring to the Income Tax Act. In this context, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. [1991] 190 ITR 626 (Cal.) and various other decisions. Referring to Article 31(1) 4 Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC vs. DCIT (IT) of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the A.O. observed that “a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object a…

TVF FUND LTD., MAURITIUS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4632/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 153Section 74Section 90(2)

…r the provisions of the Act and provisions of the treaty are to be applied to the extent they are beneficiary to the assessee. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of CIT vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. Reported in (1991) 190 ITR 626 and the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of CIT vs. Visakhapatnam) Port Trust, reported in 1983 ITR 146. 2.5 In respect of the decision relied by the assessee, the Ld. AO opined that further appeal has been filed before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and were therefore not applicable to the present facts of the case. The Ld. A…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

ITA/334/2022HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 9

…, if any, entered into by the Government of India. Therefore, the total income specified in Sections 4 and 5 chargeable to income tax is also subject to the provisions of the agreement to the contrary, if any. 23. In CIT v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. [(1991) 190 ITR 626 (Cal)] while dealing with the correctness of Circular No. 333 dated 2-4- 1982, it was held that the conclusion is inescapable that in case of inconsistency between the terms of the Agreement and the taxation statute, the Agreement alone would prevail. The Calcutta High Court expressly approved the correctness of CBDT Circular No. 333 dated 2…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

ITA/206/2023HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 9

…, if any, entered into by the Government of India. Therefore, the total income specified in Sections 4 and 5 chargeable to income tax is also subject to the provisions of the agreement to the contrary, if any. 23. In CIT v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. [(1991) 190 ITR 626 (Cal)] while dealing with the correctness of Circular No. 333 dated 2-4- 1982, it was held that the conclusion is inescapable that in case of inconsistency between the terms of the Agreement and the taxation statute, the Agreement alone would prevail. The Calcutta High Court expressly approved the correctness of CBDT Circular No. 333 dated 2…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

ITA/61/2023HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 9

…, if any, entered into by the Government of India. Therefore, the total income specified in Sections 4 and 5 chargeable to income tax is also subject to the provisions of the agreement to the contrary, if any. 23. In CIT v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. [(1991) 190 ITR 626 (Cal)] while dealing with the correctness of Circular No. 333 dated 2-4- 1982, it was held that the conclusion is inescapable that in case of inconsistency between the terms of the Agreement and the taxation statute, the Agreement alone would prevail. The Calcutta High Court expressly approved the correctness of CBDT Circular No. 333 dated 2…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

ITA/55/2023HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 9

…, if any, entered into by the Government of India. Therefore, the total income specified in Sections 4 and 5 chargeable to income tax is also subject to the provisions of the agreement to the contrary, if any. 23. In CIT v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. [(1991) 190 ITR 626 (Cal)] while dealing with the correctness of Circular No. 333 dated 2-4- 1982, it was held that the conclusion is inescapable that in case of inconsistency between the terms of the Agreement and the taxation statute, the Agreement alone would prevail. The Calcutta High Court expressly approved the correctness of CBDT Circular No. 333 dated 2…

DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI vs. AEDAS PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 716/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Aedas Pte. Ltd. International Taxation, 11-01, Keppel Towers, New Delhi. 10 Hoe Chiang Road, Singapore, Sg 089315, Foreign Singapore. Pan Aaica4878K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT- DR
Section 143(2)Section 144C(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

…design services does not qualify as FTS. Further, relying on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gera Developments P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 160 ITD 439 and decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (1990) 190 ITR 626 submitted that the impugned payments received by the assessee could not be characterised as royalty in terms of Article 12(3) of the India-Singapore DTAA. 7. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the material on record. With respect to ground No. 1 and 2, the Ld. CIT(A) has recorded his detailed findings in paras 6.2 –…

GIESECKE & DEVRIENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 04, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7075/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] Giesecke & Devrient [India] Pvt Ltd Vs. The Addl. C.I.T Corporate Office, Plot No. 57, Special Range -04 Sector 44, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan: Aabcg 4223 D [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40a

…ans that they are subject to provisions of section 90 of the Act by necessary implication they are subject to terms of DTAA, if any, entered into by the Government of India. 60. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT Vs. Devi Ashmore India Ltd 190 ITR 626, while dealing with the correctness of Circular number 333 dated 2nd April, 1982 137 ITR statute 1 held that: “The conclusion is inescapable that, in case of inconsistency between the terms of the Agreement and the taxation statute, the Agreement alone would prevail.” 61. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case had expressly approved the co…

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 908/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…o Explanation 2(v) under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and pointed out that if exclusive rights were sold, then it was not ‘royalty’. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT Vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 626 (Cal), wherein it is held that where transferee retains the property rights in design, secret formula, etc. and allows use of such rights, consideration received from such user was in the nature of ‘royalty’ and where there was an outright sale or purchase, the consideration was for transfer of such design, secret formula and could not be treated…

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 907/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…o Explanation 2(v) under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and pointed out that if exclusive rights were sold, then it was not ‘royalty’. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT Vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 626 (Cal), wherein it is held that where transferee retains the property rights in design, secret formula, etc. and allows use of such rights, consideration received from such user was in the nature of ‘royalty’ and where there was an outright sale or purchase, the consideration was for transfer of such design, secret formula and could not be treated…

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 906/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…o Explanation 2(v) under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and pointed out that if exclusive rights were sold, then it was not ‘royalty’. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT Vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 626 (Cal), wherein it is held that where transferee retains the property rights in design, secret formula, etc. and allows use of such rights, consideration received from such user was in the nature of ‘royalty’ and where there was an outright sale or purchase, the consideration was for transfer of such design, secret formula and could not be treated…

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 905/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…o Explanation 2(v) under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and pointed out that if exclusive rights were sold, then it was not ‘royalty’. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT Vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 626 (Cal), wherein it is held that where transferee retains the property rights in design, secret formula, etc. and allows use of such rights, consideration received from such user was in the nature of ‘royalty’ and where there was an outright sale or purchase, the consideration was for transfer of such design, secret formula and could not be treated…

ITO, WD-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S M.S.K. TRAVELS AND TOURS LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 284/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri N.B.Som, Addl. CIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Bikash Chanda, AR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(2)Section 90(1)

…se failing on the provisions of the DTAA, the question of examining provisions under the IT Act arises. We may, in this regard, quote the following observations made by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 626 (Cal) : "..... The conclusion is inescapable that, in case of inconsistency between the terms of Agreement and the taxation statute, the agreement alone would prevail. The CBDT has issued a Circular No. 333, dt. 2nd April, 1982 [(1982) 137 ITR (St) 1], on the question as to what the AOs will do when they find that the provisions of the DTAA are…

PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO TDS 2(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, for

ITA 2174/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 191Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…mitted that outright purchase of copyright does not constitute 15 Pidilite Industries Ltd royalty and hence the question of reduction of tax at source u/s 194J does not arise. The assessee relied upon the following judgment. CIT v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (190 ITR 626) (Cal.) CIT v. Maggronic Devices (P) Ltd. (329 ITR 442) (HP) (para 14) CIT v. Klayman Porcelain Ltd (229 ITR 735) (AP HC) (para 6) CIT v. Andhra Petrochemicals Ltd (373 ITR 207) (AP) (para 28) M/s. Saregama (I) Ltd. v. ACIT(lTANo. 1813/Kol/2009) (Kol.) (para 10) ITO v. Heubach Color (P.) Ltd. (69 SOT 173) (Ahm.) (para 6). This is subsequently a…

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 349/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…llant has relied on following key judicial precedents: • DCIT-3(1), Bhopal vs VA TECH Hydro India Private Limited (ITA No 255/IND-2007) • ACIT, 3(1), Bhopal vs VA TECH Hydro India Private Limited (ITA No 112 to 115/IND-2007) • Davy Ashmore India Ltd. vs CIT - 190 ITR 626 • Pro-Quip Corporation Vs CIT - 255 ITR 354 9. With regard to the payment made for design and drawing imported by it from its group companies in Austria, the AO held that such import of design is not in nature of ‘purchase of raw materials’, however, the AO treated the same as payment of royalty as per Section 91(vii). While reaching to this conc…

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 316/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…llant has relied on following key judicial precedents: • DCIT-3(1), Bhopal vs VA TECH Hydro India Private Limited (ITA No 255/IND-2007) • ACIT, 3(1), Bhopal vs VA TECH Hydro India Private Limited (ITA No 112 to 115/IND-2007) • Davy Ashmore India Ltd. vs CIT - 190 ITR 626 • Pro-Quip Corporation Vs CIT - 255 ITR 354 9. With regard to the payment made for design and drawing imported by it from its group companies in Austria, the AO held that such import of design is not in nature of ‘purchase of raw materials’, however, the AO treated the same as payment of royalty as per Section 91(vii). While reaching to this conc…

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 265/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…llant has relied on following key judicial precedents: • DCIT-3(1), Bhopal vs VA TECH Hydro India Private Limited (ITA No 255/IND-2007) • ACIT, 3(1), Bhopal vs VA TECH Hydro India Private Limited (ITA No 112 to 115/IND-2007) • Davy Ashmore India Ltd. vs CIT - 190 ITR 626 • Pro-Quip Corporation Vs CIT - 255 ITR 354 9. With regard to the payment made for design and drawing imported by it from its group companies in Austria, the AO held that such import of design is not in nature of ‘purchase of raw materials’, however, the AO treated the same as payment of royalty as per Section 91(vii). While reaching to this conc…

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 157/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…llant has relied on following key judicial precedents: • DCIT-3(1), Bhopal vs VA TECH Hydro India Private Limited (ITA No 255/IND-2007) • ACIT, 3(1), Bhopal vs VA TECH Hydro India Private Limited (ITA No 112 to 115/IND-2007) • Davy Ashmore India Ltd. vs CIT - 190 ITR 626 • Pro-Quip Corporation Vs CIT - 255 ITR 354 9. With regard to the payment made for design and drawing imported by it from its group companies in Austria, the AO held that such import of design is not in nature of ‘purchase of raw materials’, however, the AO treated the same as payment of royalty as per Section 91(vii). While reaching to this conc…

M/S BALMER LAWRIES & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2079/KOL/2014[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 21, N.S.Road, (International Taxation), Kolkata-700 001 Ward-1(1), Aayakar [Pan No. Aabcb 0984 E] Bhawan (Poorva), 2Nd Floor, R. No.215, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata- 700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Poddar, Sr-Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.P.Bhatia, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)

…n (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC). The said view was also stated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in its Circular No.333 dated 2nd April, 1982 reported in (1982) 137 ITR(St.) 1 as well as by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Davi Ashmore India Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 626 (Cal). The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom), and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Van Oord ACZ India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 130 (Del), the Authority for Advance Rulings in HMS Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., In re (2010) 325 ITR 71 (AAR) and Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd., In re (2010) 323 ITR 184 (A…

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (190 ITR 626) — Cited in 24 Judgments | BharatTax