CIT v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd.

190 ITR 626High Court1991#4810 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 366,314 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.

Hcl Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax

ITA - 93 / 2002HC Delhi03 Feb 2015
Section 260A

…y and secrecy, reference to intellectual property rights of ADC and their protection, reflect and re- enforce our finding. ADC continued and remained the owner. The appellant HCL was only granted a right to use. 35. In CIT vs. Devi Ashmore India (1991) 190 ITR 626 (Cal.), it was observed that the non-resident had not retained the property in the design and the drawings and it was out and out transfer or sale of the said design or drawing. Therefore, it was not a case of royalty but consideration for sale. The said decision is therefore distinguishable. In the case of Citizen Watch Company Limited ver…

Hcl Limited

ITA/93/2002HC Delhi03 Feb 2015
Section 260A

…y and secrecy, reference to intellectual property rights of ADC and their protection, reflect and re- enforce our finding. ADC continued and remained the owner. The appellant HCL was only granted a right to use. 35. In CIT vs. Devi Ashmore India (1991) 190 ITR 626 (Cal.), it was observed that the non-resident had not retained the property in the design and the drawings and it was out and out transfer or sale of the said design or drawing. Therefore, it was not a case of royalty but consideration for sale. The said decision is therefore distinguishable. In the case of Citizen Watch Company Limited ver…

Commissioner of Income Tax Rajahmundry vs. M/S.B.Krishna Murthy Kakinada and 2 Ors

ITTA/93/2002HC Telangana10 Dec 2013

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Director of Income Tax vs. Infrasoft Ltd

ITA/1034/2009HC Delhi22 Nov 2013
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 4Section 9(1)(vi)

…He held that these two transfers were distinct and had different legal effects. In one, right for purchase while in other, no purchase is involved. He relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT VS. DAVY ASHMORE INDIA LTD. (1991) 190 ITR 626, wherein it was held that 2013:DHC:6018 ======================================================================= ITA 1034/2009 Page 18 of 174 where a transferee retains the property rights in a design, secret formula etc. and allows the use of such rights, the consideration received for such u…