CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft

310 ITR 320High Court2009#326 most cited

What is CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft authority for?

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

256

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft · 310 ITR 320 · reimbursements not taxable · no profit element · Section 9(1)(vi) · Section 9(1)(vii) · Section 195 · Section 90(2) · DTAA override · withholding tax on FTS royalty · fees for technical services · royalty income

Also reported as

177 Taxmann 81220 CTR 425

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 14(a)/14(b) of the Copyrights ActSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 1961

Issues it is cited on

section 195(2)fees for included servicessection 44bbsection 9(1)(vi)section 44bwithholding taxcopyrighted articleroyalty incomesection 90(2)section 9(1)fees for technical servicespermanent establishment

Judgments citing CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft

RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM USA INC.,TEXAS vs. DCIT (IT) 4 (1) (1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2991/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…not a binding judicial precedent. Let us also not lose sight of the fact that, as pointed out by the learned Departmental Representative, there is a direct decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Siemens Aktiongesellschaft [(2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom)], upholding ambulatory approach to domestic law meaning of undefined terms under article 3(2), and, if the same approach is adopted in the present case for certain expressions appearing in the definition in the royalty, the plea of the revenue, at least on the face of it, does not seem to be totally devoid of legally sustainable merits. In…

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 544/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate and Ms. AnkitaFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT

…contention, the assessee placed reliance on various case laws including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DIT v. A.P. Moller Maersk A/S (2017) 78 taxmann.com 287 (SC), judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft 310 ITR 320 (Bom) and DIT v. Wizcraft International Entertainment (P.) Ltd. 364 ITR 227 (Bom), and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Industrial Engineering Projects (P.) Ltd. ( 24 taxmann.com 76). On the basis of the above submissions, the learned assessee urged that the ESOP expenditure be allowed as a deductible business expense under section 37(1) of the Ac…

DCIT, DELHI vs. MKF LOGISTICS PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3056/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit, Vs. Mkf Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. E/63B, South Extension Part 1, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan : Aaacm5865E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Shri Saksham Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 04.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.31,32,270/- On 10.09.2016. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass, Accordingly Notices Under Section 143(2)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194C

…urts that reimbursements are not taxable as no profit element included therein: 11  Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Industrial Engineering Projects Pvt. Limited, 202 ITR 1014, Delhi High Court  COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus SIEMENS AKTIONGESELLSCHAFT 310 ITR 320, Bombay High Court  Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Scindia House, Versus Krupp Udhe GMBH. 354 ITR I73, Bombay High Court. 4. GROUND RAISED BY DEPARTMENT IS INCORRECT AND APPEAL DESERVED TO BE DISMISSED In the grounds of appeal, the Department has also incorrectly invoked Section 199, which merely deals with credit of TDS and is…

INMARSAT SOLUTIONS BV,NETHERLANDS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INTL. TAX. 2(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1729/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarinmarsat Solutions B. V., Vs. Acit, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, International Taxation, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Circle-2(1)(1), Delhi (West), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacci9974L Assessee By : Shri Hiten Thakkar, Adv Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)

…361 ITR 575 (Mad), the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants (P) Ltd. and the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongeswellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom). Reliance has been placed on the order of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd. vs. ADIT (International Taxation)-2(2), Mumbai(2014) 44 taxmann.com 1 (Mum- Trib) in support of the argument that this is the view taken by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal. Notwithstanding the fact that at that point of time th…

ISAT AFRICA LIMITED FZC,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the final assessment order passed by AO is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed in above terms

ITA 832/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanisat Africa Limited Fzc Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Office No. 5 Pre-Fab, C Phase Ii, Of Income Tax Fujairah Free Zone Fujairah, Dubai, International Tax Circle- United Arab Emirates, Dubai - 2(2)(2) 999999 Mumbai, Maharashtra. Pan – Aagci8661Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 148ASection 195Section 201Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…be insufficient to persuade this Court to hold that such amendments are applicable to the DTAAs. In the said decision, Delhi High Court had also referred and relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v/s. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft reported in 310 ITR 320, in which it was held that, mere amendment of the Act, would not over-ride the provisions of DTAA treaties".(Emphasis by us) 6 In view of such detailed consideration by the Delhi High Court in the case of New Skies Satellite BV (supra), which is the foreign based company to whom the assessee has made payment in question, where identical issue ca…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. XIOCOM ( NZ) LTD

The appeal is dismissed against the appellant/the Revenue and in

ITA/299/2025HC Delhi12 Aug 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 195Section 260ASection 9(1)(vi)

…Court, in the case of Nokia Networks (Supra) and it has been held again in unequivocal terms that the amendments cannot be read into the Treaty. The Hon’ble High Court followed the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (310 ITR 320) in this regard and their own observations in the case of Ericsson (Supra). Thus, despite the amendments, the consideration cannot be regarded as “Royalty” in the absence of corresponding amendments in India-New Zealand DTAA. 2.5 The AO has also sought to raise the proposition that software can also be regarded as a process or patent. In the…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. XIOCOM ( NZ) LTD

The appeal is dismissed against the

ITA - 299 / 2025HC Delhi12 Aug 2025
Section 195Section 260ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…Court, in the case of Nokia Networks (Supra) and it has been held again in unequivocal terms that the amendments cannot be read into the Treaty. The Hon’ble High Court followed the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (310 ITR 320) in this regard and their own observations in the case of Ericsson (Supra). Thus, despite the amendments, the consideration cannot be regarded as “Royalty” in the absence of corresponding amendments in India-New Zealand DTAA. 2.5 The AO has also sought to raise the proposition that software can also be regarded as a process or patent. In t…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. HSBC BANK PLC, LONDON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1538/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 192

…s of the case, cannot be treated as income in the hands of the assessee. In support of his contentions, the Learned Representative relied on the following judgments: (i) DIT (IT) v. A P Moller Maersk AS, 392 ITR 186 (SC) (ii) CIT v. Siemens Aktiongeselschaft, 310 ITR 320 (Bom) 6. The Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the onus is on the assessee to produce all the evidences of expenditure and that this onus is clearly not discharged by the assessee. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on…

DCIT, INTL. TAXN., CIRCEL1(2), BANGALORE vs. BLUE YONDER INC., U.S.A, USA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1326/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedit(It)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Blue Yonder Inc., International Taxation, 15059 N, Suite 400 Scottsdale, Circle -1(2), Arizona, Foreign, Bengaluru. United States. Pan : Aaccj 3581 C Appellant Respondent C.O.No.34/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Blue Yonder Inc., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, United States. Circle -1(2), Pan : Aaccj 3581 C Bengaluru. Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate & Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. R. Ilavarasi, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Cit(A) Both Dated 09.05.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-13 & 2018-19. It(It)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 C.O. No.34/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Page 2 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate and Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Ilavarasi, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. M/s. Blue Yonder Inc., International Taxation, 15059 N, Suite 400 Scottsdale, Circle -1(2), Arizona, Foreign, Bengaluru. United States. PAN : AACCJ 3581 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O.No.34/Bang/2024 (in IT(IT)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s. Blue Yonder Inc., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, United States. Circle -1(2), PAN : AACCJ…

DCIT, INTL TAXN, CIRCLE-1(2), BNG, BENGALURU vs. BLUE YONDER INC., U.S.A

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1302/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedit(It)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Blue Yonder Inc., International Taxation, 15059 N, Suite 400 Scottsdale, Circle -1(2), Arizona, Foreign, Bengaluru. United States. Pan : Aaccj 3581 C Appellant Respondent C.O.No.34/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Blue Yonder Inc., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, United States. Circle -1(2), Pan : Aaccj 3581 C Bengaluru. Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate & Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. R. Ilavarasi, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Cit(A) Both Dated 09.05.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-13 & 2018-19. It(It)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 C.O. No.34/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Page 2 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate and Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Ilavarasi, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. M/s. Blue Yonder Inc., International Taxation, 15059 N, Suite 400 Scottsdale, Circle -1(2), Arizona, Foreign, Bengaluru. United States. PAN : AACCJ 3581 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O.No.34/Bang/2024 (in IT(IT)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s. Blue Yonder Inc., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, United States. Circle -1(2), PAN : AACCJ…

DCIT,INTL. TAXN., CIRCLE 1(2), BANGALORE vs. BLUE YONDER INC., BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1414/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A Nos. 1412 to 1414/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/s. Blue Yonder Inc, of Income Tax, Tower A, Mantari Commercio, Circle – 1(2), Outer Ring Road, (International taxation), Bellandur, Bengaluru. Bengaluru. PAN: AACCJ 3581C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. Advocate Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 03.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 12.09.20…

DCIT, CIRCLE 1(2) (INTL. TAXN.) , BLR, BANGALORE vs. BLUE YONDER INC, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1413/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A Nos. 1412 to 1414/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/s. Blue Yonder Inc, of Income Tax, Tower A, Mantari Commercio, Circle – 1(2), Outer Ring Road, (International taxation), Bellandur, Bengaluru. Bengaluru. PAN: AACCJ 3581C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. Advocate Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 03.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 12.09.20…

DCIT, CIRCLE 1(2), (INTL. TAXN.), BANGALORE vs. BLUE YONDER INC., BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1412/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A Nos. 1412 to 1414/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/s. Blue Yonder Inc, of Income Tax, Tower A, Mantari Commercio, Circle – 1(2), Outer Ring Road, (International taxation), Bellandur, Bengaluru. Bengaluru. PAN: AACCJ 3581C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. Advocate Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 03.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 12.09.20…

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 111/IND/2015[2013-14 (Quarter 4)]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

…he ITAT has dealt with this aspect in its judgment in Gracemac Co. Vs. ADIT 134 TTJ (Delhi) 257 pointing out that even software bought off the shelf, does not constitute a "copyrighted article". It was categorically held in CIT Vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft, 310 ITR 320 (Bom) that the amendments cannot be read into the treaty and on 'the wording of the treaty, it was already held that a copyrighted article does not fall within the purview of Royalty.” Gracemac Co. vs. ADIT 134 TTJ (Delhi) 257, CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft, 310 ITR 320 (Bom.), DIT vs. Ericsson, 343 ITR 370, relied on.” 64. Recently, the Hon…

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 110/IND/2015[2013-14 (for first three quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

…he ITAT has dealt with this aspect in its judgment in Gracemac Co. Vs. ADIT 134 TTJ (Delhi) 257 pointing out that even software bought off the shelf, does not constitute a "copyrighted article". It was categorically held in CIT Vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft, 310 ITR 320 (Bom) that the amendments cannot be read into the treaty and on 'the wording of the treaty, it was already held that a copyrighted article does not fall within the purview of Royalty.” Gracemac Co. vs. ADIT 134 TTJ (Delhi) 257, CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft, 310 ITR 320 (Bom.), DIT vs. Ericsson, 343 ITR 370, relied on.” 64. Recently, the Hon…

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 109/IND/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

…he ITAT has dealt with this aspect in its judgment in Gracemac Co. Vs. ADIT 134 TTJ (Delhi) 257 pointing out that even software bought off the shelf, does not constitute a "copyrighted article". It was categorically held in CIT Vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft, 310 ITR 320 (Bom) that the amendments cannot be read into the treaty and on 'the wording of the treaty, it was already held that a copyrighted article does not fall within the purview of Royalty.” Gracemac Co. vs. ADIT 134 TTJ (Delhi) 257, CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft, 310 ITR 320 (Bom.), DIT vs. Ericsson, 343 ITR 370, relied on.” 64. Recently, the Hon…

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

…rue, that is that every tax enactment adopted for whatever purpose, might have the effect of amending one or more bilateral or multilateral tax conventions without any avowed purpose or intention so to do." 48. In CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom), the Bombay High Court citing R. v. Melford Developments Inc. held that (page 333 of 310 ITR): "The ratio of the judgment, in our opinion, would mean that by a unilateral amendment it is not possible for one nation which is party to an agreement to tax income which otherwise was not subject to tax. Such income would not be subject to…

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

…rue, that is that every tax enactment adopted for whatever purpose, might have the effect of amending one or more bilateral or multilateral tax conventions without any avowed purpose or intention so to do." 48. In CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom), the Bombay High Court citing R. v. Melford Developments Inc. held that (page 333 of 310 ITR): "The ratio of the judgment, in our opinion, would mean that by a unilateral amendment it is not possible for one nation which is party to an agreement to tax income which otherwise was not subject to tax. Such income would not be subject to…

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

…rue, that is that every tax enactment adopted for whatever purpose, might have the effect of amending one or more bilateral or multilateral tax conventions without any avowed purpose or intention so to do." 48. In CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom), the Bombay High Court citing R. v. Melford Developments Inc. held that (page 333 of 310 ITR): "The ratio of the judgment, in our opinion, would mean that by a unilateral amendment it is not possible for one nation which is party to an agreement to tax income which otherwise was not subject to tax. Such income would not be subject to…

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

…rue, that is that every tax enactment adopted for whatever purpose, might have the effect of amending one or more bilateral or multilateral tax conventions without any avowed purpose or intention so to do." 48. In CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom), the Bombay High Court citing R. v. Melford Developments Inc. held that (page 333 of 310 ITR): "The ratio of the judgment, in our opinion, would mean that by a unilateral amendment it is not possible for one nation which is party to an agreement to tax income which otherwise was not subject to tax. Such income would not be subject to…

Showing 1–20 of 256 · Page 1 of 13

...
CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (310 ITR 320) — Cited in 256 Judgments | BharatTax