CIT v. Herbalife International India (P.) Ltd.

384 ITR 276High Court2016#4836 most cited

What is CIT v. Herbalife International India (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) for payments to a US resident is not permissible if it imposes harsher conditions than those applicable to payments made to an Indian resident, due to the non-discrimination clause in the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Herbalife International India · Section 40(a)(i) · Article 26(3) India-US DTAA · non-discrimination clause · deductibility of payments to non-residents · DTAA more beneficial than Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Herbalife International India (P.) Ltd.

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (IT)1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

…e in view of Tax Treaty (e.g., Article 26 of India- UK Tax Treaty). In support of the above contentions, he relied on the following case laws:- (i). DIT v. Citibank N.A. (377 ITR 69) (Bom HC) - Sec 40(a)(i) (ii). CIT v. Herbalife International India (P) Ltd - 384 ITR 276 (Del HC) - Sec 40(a)(i) 20 ITA NO. 803 & 850/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 1999-2000) Standard Chartered Bank (iii). Rajeev Sureshbhai Gajwani v. ACIT - 129 ITD 145 (at Paras 7 & 8.5) (SB - Ahd) - Sec 80HHE (iv). Standard Chartered Bank v. IAC - 39 ITD 57 (Mum) - Sec 36(1)(viia) - UK Treaty (v). Metchem Canada Inc. v. DCIT - 284 ITR (AT) 196 (Mum) - Sec 44C (v…

LLOYDS REGISTER QUALITY ASSURANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2856/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K Pradhanlloyd’S Register Quality Assurance Ltd. (India Branch Office) 63–64, Kalpataru Square 6Th Floor, Kondivita Lane ……………. Appellant Off Andheri – Kurla Road Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 Pan – Aaacl9740K V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax I.T – 3(1)(2), Mumbai ……………. Respondent [Erstwhile Jurisdiction Adit, It–4(1), Mumbai] Lloyd’S Register Quality Assurance Ltd. (India Branch Office) 63–64, Kalpataru Square 6Th Floor, Kondivita Lane ……………. Appellant Off Andheri – Kurla Road Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 Pan – Aaacl9740K V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax I.T – 3(1)(2), Mumbai ……………. Respondent [Erstwhile Jurisdiction Adit, It–4(1), Mumbai]

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 40Section 44C

…assessee as infructuous. 15. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that while deciding identical issue in assessee’s own case the Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v/s Herbalife India International Pvt. Ltd., 384 ITR 276 (Del.), has held that provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act are not applicable to payment of management charges. 9 Lloyd’s Register Quality Assurance Ltd. 16. The learned Departmental Representative agreed that the issue was decided in favour of the assessee in assessment year 2008–09 and 2009–10. 17. Having considered rival submissions and…

LLOYDS REGISTER QUALITY ASSURANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 742/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 742 & 743/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2011-12) Lloyd’S Register Quality Assurance Ltd. Dy. Dit(It)-4(1) (India Branch Office) Scindia House, Mumbai बनाम/ 63-64, Kalpataru Square, 6Th Floor, Kondivita Lane, Vs. Off. Andheri Kural Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacl 9740 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Ms. Neha Vikram ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. V. Rajguru

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru
Section 40

…for assessment year 2008-09 as referred above. The facts are undisputed and are identical. The tribunal had decided the issue in favour of the assessee by following the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Herbalifc International India P.Ltd. (384 ITR 276). We may gainfully refer to the order of the Tribunal on this issue as under: 6. Next effective ground of appeal(GOA -3&4) is about application of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act to management charges. During the assessment proceedings, the AO held that the assessee had to deduct tax at source on all the payments unless he had approached the AO and…

Showing 120 of 25 · Page 1 of 2