CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.

346 ITR 467High Court2012#199 most cited

What is CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd. authority for?

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

371

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals · 346 ITR 467 · make available clause · fees for technical services · fees for included services · Article 12(4) India-USA DTAA · section 9(1)(vii) · section 90(2) · enduring benefit · DTAA interpretation · withholding tax non-resident

Also reported as

21 Taxmann.com 2142012 SCC OnLine KAR 8858

Sections most often in play

Section 9(1)(vii)Section 195Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 1961Section 90(2)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

fees for included servicesmake available clausesection 9(1)(vii)(b)section 9(1)(vii)fees for technical servicesenduring benefitsection 90(2)section 9(1)tax treatysection 9(1)(vi)section 195computer software

Judgments citing CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.

ACIT 11(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Total Oil India P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4300/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri S. Usmani (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…in view of provision u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act and accordingly allowed the claim of the assessee. However, at the time of argument, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has also placed reliance upon the decision of the CIT Vs. De Beers India Mineral P. Ltd. (346 ITR 467) and Raymond Limited Vs. DCIT (86 ITD 791) The said decisions are in connection of similar nature of expenses. We are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the…

Total Oil India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

ITA 4135/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri S. Usmani (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…in view of provision u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act and accordingly allowed the claim of the assessee. However, at the time of argument, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has also placed reliance upon the decision of the CIT Vs. De Beers India Mineral P. Ltd. (346 ITR 467) and Raymond Limited Vs. DCIT (86 ITD 791) The said decisions are in connection of similar nature of expenses. We are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the…

M/S Filtrex Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2162/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.H Sundar Rao, CIT

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2162/Bang/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3330/Band/2018 Assessment years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s Filtrex Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, #36/4, Raghavendra Nagar, Circle-3(1)(1), Near Ring Road, Bangalore. 4th Cross, HRBR Layout, Bangalore-560 043. PAN – AAACF 4091 P. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.A Revenue by : Shri C.H Sundar Rao, CIT Date of hearing : 29.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 21.06.20…

The Nielsen Company (Us) Llc, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 4(2), Mumbai

In the result the Ground No

ITA 4362/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhthe Nielsen Company (Us) Dcit (It) - 4(2) Llc, C/O Nielsen (India) Pvt. Mumbai. Ltd., 6Th Floor, Block-C, Godrej Vs. It Park, 02 Godrej Business, District, Phirojshah Nagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aacfj7526Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala With Sh. Madhur Agrawal (Ars) Respondent By : Shri Himanshu Sharma & Sh. Nishant Samaiya (Sr. Drs)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala with ShFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma and Sh. Nishant Samaiya (Sr. DRs)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 234BSection 253Section 254(1)

…risdictional High Court decisions, namely Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT v. Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd [2012] 346 ITR 504/207 Taxman 121/20 taxmann.com 807 and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd [2012] 346 ITR 467/208 Taxman 406/21 taxmann.com 214 in favour of the assessee, and there is no contrary decision by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court or by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In De Beers case (supra), Their Lordships posed the question, as to "what is meaning of make available", to themselves, and proceeded to deal with it as follows: 'The technical or consul…

M/S Redcore India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-5(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 226/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri M.P Lohia, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. P.V Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) by
Section 195Section 234DSection 271Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C ” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2014-15 Redcore (India) Pvt. Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Ltd., Ward - 5(1)(4), 1st Floor, 71, SRT Bengaluru. Cunningham Road, Bengaluru. PAN: AAGCR 0132 B. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri M.P Lohia, C.A Respondent : Dr. P.V Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) by Date of hearing : 03-04-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 24-04-2019 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 26-10-2017 of the CIT…

M/S Outotec India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4511/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 4511/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Outotec India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income 507, 5Th Floor, Copia Corporate Tax, Circle-13(1), Suites, 9, Jasola Commercial New Delhi-110002 Complex, Jasola, New Delhi-110025, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco9433A Assessee By : Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv. & Sh. Suvinay Kumar Dash, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

For Appellant: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 4511/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Outotec India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income 507, 5th Floor, Copia Corporate Tax, Circle-13(1), Suites, 9, Jasola Commercial New Delhi-110002 Complex, Jasola, New Delhi-110025, Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACO9433A Assessee by : Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv. & Sh. Suvinay Kumar Dash, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 ORDER Per…

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Kolkata vs. ACIT(It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee, in all the assessment years, are allowed in part

ITA 87/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 112/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………...............................………...…………………….…Assessee [Pan : Aacck 0806 B] Dcit(It) -1(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..………...Revenue & I.T.A. No. 87/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………........................................………...…………………….…Assessee [Pan : Aacck 0806 B] Acit(It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..………...Revenue & I.T.A. No.2474/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………........................................………...…………………….…Assessee [Pan : Aacck 0806 B] Acit(It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..………...Revenue Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Navneet Misra, Adovacate, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. K. Srihari, Cit-Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 112/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………...............................………...…………………….…Assessee [PAN : AACCK 0806 B] DCIT(IT) -1(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..………...Revenue & I.T.A. No. 87/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………........................................………...…………………….…Assessee [PAN : AACCK 0806 B] ACIT(IT), Circle-1(2…

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Kolkata vs. DCIT, (It)-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee, in all the assessment years, are allowed in part

ITA 112/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 112/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………...............................………...…………………….…Assessee [Pan : Aacck 0806 B] Dcit(It) -1(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..………...Revenue & I.T.A. No. 87/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………........................................………...…………………….…Assessee [Pan : Aacck 0806 B] Acit(It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..………...Revenue & I.T.A. No.2474/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………........................................………...…………………….…Assessee [Pan : Aacck 0806 B] Acit(It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..………...Revenue Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Navneet Misra, Adovacate, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. K. Srihari, Cit-Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 112/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………...............................………...…………………….…Assessee [PAN : AACCK 0806 B] DCIT(IT) -1(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..………...Revenue & I.T.A. No. 87/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………........................................………...…………………….…Assessee [PAN : AACCK 0806 B] ACIT(IT), Circle-1(2…

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Kolkata vs. ACIT(It), Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee, in all the assessment years, are allowed in part

ITA 2474/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 112/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………...............................………...…………………….…Assessee [Pan : Aacck 0806 B] Dcit(It) -1(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..………...Revenue & I.T.A. No. 87/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………........................................………...…………………….…Assessee [Pan : Aacck 0806 B] Acit(It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..………...Revenue & I.T.A. No.2474/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………........................................………...…………………….…Assessee [Pan : Aacck 0806 B] Acit(It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..………...Revenue Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Navneet Misra, Adovacate, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. K. Srihari, Cit-Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 112/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………...............................………...…………………….…Assessee [PAN : AACCK 0806 B] DCIT(IT) -1(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..………...Revenue & I.T.A. No. 87/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………........................................………...…………………….…Assessee [PAN : AACCK 0806 B] ACIT(IT), Circle-1(2…

DCIT (International Taxation), Gurgaon vs. M/S. Msv International Inc., Gurgaon

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2187/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri R.K. Panda

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 44D

…dvice as set out in earlier paras. The averment of AO that it is “ made available” to assessee is not correct and therefore we disregard the same. The term „Make available‟ has been explained by Hon Karnataka High court in case of CIT V De beers India P Ltd ( 346 ITR 467 ) ( kar) on Indo Netherland DTAA as under :- “21. What is the meaning of "make available". The technical or consultancy service rendered should be of such a nature that it "makes available" to the recipient technical knowledge, know- how and the like. The service should be aimed at and result in transmitting technical knowledge, etc., so that the…

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)

…nology contained therein. There are at least two non-jurisdictional High Court decisions, namely Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd (346 ITR 504) and Hon‘ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs De Beers India Pvt Ltd (346 ITR 467) in support of this proposition, and there is no contrary decision by Hon‘ble jurisdictional High Court or by Hon‘ble Supreme Court. We, therefore, hold that unless there is a transfer of technology involved in technical services extended by the UK based company, the ‗make available‘ clause is not satisfied and, accordingly, the consideration for…

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)

…nology contained therein. There are at least two non-jurisdictional High Court decisions, namely Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd (346 ITR 504) and Hon‘ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs De Beers India Pvt Ltd (346 ITR 467) in support of this proposition, and there is no contrary decision by Hon‘ble jurisdictional High Court or by Hon‘ble Supreme Court. We, therefore, hold that unless there is a transfer of technology involved in technical services extended by the UK based company, the ‗make available‘ clause is not satisfied and, accordingly, the consideration for…

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)

…nology contained therein. There are at least two non-jurisdictional High Court decisions, namely Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd (346 ITR 504) and Hon‘ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs De Beers India Pvt Ltd (346 ITR 467) in support of this proposition, and there is no contrary decision by Hon‘ble jurisdictional High Court or by Hon‘ble Supreme Court. We, therefore, hold that unless there is a transfer of technology involved in technical services extended by the UK based company, the ‗make available‘ clause is not satisfied and, accordingly, the consideration for…

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)

…nology contained therein. There are at least two non-jurisdictional High Court decisions, namely Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd (346 ITR 504) and Hon‘ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs De Beers India Pvt Ltd (346 ITR 467) in support of this proposition, and there is no contrary decision by Hon‘ble jurisdictional High Court or by Hon‘ble Supreme Court. We, therefore, hold that unless there is a transfer of technology involved in technical services extended by the UK based company, the ‗make available‘ clause is not satisfied and, accordingly, the consideration for…

Ongc As Representative Assessee of National Mining Research Centre, Russia, Dehradun vs. ADIT, Dehradun

In the result, whereas assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 441/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 115ASection 44Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

…now-how to the recipient, which is ONGC in the present case, enabling the ONGC to apply such knowledge in future. For this proposition he placed reliance on the decisions in DIT vs. Guy Carpenter& Co. Ltd 346 ITR 504; CIT vs. De Beers India minerals (P.) Ltd 346 ITR 467; DDIT RSS ONGC in ITA No. 4989/mum/2012; KPMG vs. ACIT in ITA No. 6286/mum/2012; ACIT vs. BSR and company 70 taxman.com 69. 6. He further submitted that in the case of ONGC, the vendor had only provided services mainly in the nature of survey report/feasibility study reports to the ONGC and did not make available the skill/know-how used in render…

ADIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Dehradun

In the result, whereas assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4982/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 115ASection 44Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

…now-how to the recipient, which is ONGC in the present case, enabling the ONGC to apply such knowledge in future. For this proposition he placed reliance on the decisions in DIT vs. Guy Carpenter& Co. Ltd 346 ITR 504; CIT vs. De Beers India minerals (P.) Ltd 346 ITR 467; DDIT RSS ONGC in ITA No. 4989/mum/2012; KPMG vs. ACIT in ITA No. 6286/mum/2012; ACIT vs. BSR and company 70 taxman.com 69. 6. He further submitted that in the case of ONGC, the vendor had only provided services mainly in the nature of survey report/feasibility study reports to the ONGC and did not make available the skill/know-how used in render…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Grant Thornton, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 4143/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(2)Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT, Vs. M/s. Grant Thornton, Circle-52(1), New Delhi L-41, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN :AACFG9740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Shaveta Nakra Dutta, Sr.DR Respondent by Shri V.K. Bindal, CA & Ms. Sweety Kothari, CA Date of hearing 03.01.2019 Date of pronouncement 10.01.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the revenue is directed against order dated 30/03/2015 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal…

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed,

ITA 6723/DEL/2015[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav JainFor Respondent: Smt. Naine Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 195(2)Section 28Section 44Section 44BSection 44D

…technical knowledge, skill, know how etc. was made available to the assessee. The issue in question is no more res integra in view of the following judgments :- 1. DIT vs. Guy Carpenter & Co. Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 504 2. CIT vs. De Beers India Minerals (P) Ltd. 346 ITR 467 9. Thus the amount paid by ONGC to the NRC can be brought to tax only under article 7 of the Indo-USA DTAA as business profit, provided the NRC has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and the profit in question is attributable to such PE. Admittedly NRC does not have PE in India. Under these circumstances the receipt of the non resident canno…

Anjani Synthetics Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 3594/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…ions, namely Hon'ble Delhi Anjani Synthetics Ltd Vs. DCIT Assessment year: 2012-13 Page 3 of 4 High Court in the case of DIT v. Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd. [2012] 346 ITR 504 and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. De Beers India (P.) Ltd. [2012] 346 ITR 467/208 Taxman 406/21 taxmann.com 214 in favour of the assessee, and there is no contrary decision by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court or by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In De Beers India (P.) Ltd. case (supra), their Lordships posed the question, as to "what is meaning of 'make available'", to themselves, and proceeded to deal with it as follows: '.....…

Soregam Sa, Gurgaon vs. DDIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 123/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblesoregam Sa Vs Ddit C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Circle-3(2) 7Th Floor, Building No. 10 Intl. Taxation, Block-E2, Civil Tower B, Dlf Cyber City Complex, Centre, Jln Marg Dlf City Phase-Ii New Delhi Gurgaon Aaocs3856K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…. AR relied upon the decision of Raymond Ltd. vs. DCIT [2003] 86 ITD 791 (Mum) wherein the Tribunal interpreted the meaning of the term “make-available”. The Ld. AR also relied upon the following case laws: i. CIT vs. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd. [2012] 346 ITR 467 (Kar) ii. ACIT vs. Petronet LNG Ltd. ITA No. 865/Del/2011 10. The Ld. AR submitted that in light of the explanation in the MIPL to the India-US tax treaty along with the observations of the various Courts, interpretation of 'make available’ is summarized as under: -The person acquiring the services is enabled to apply the technology 7 containe…