CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft

United Home Entertainment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…(1)(vi) by way of insertion of Explanation (vi) by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect will have to be read into the treaty. In support of his contention, he strongly relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Seimens AG, 310 ITR 320. He submitted that, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of New Satellite BV (supra) and the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Taj TV would not be applicable. Sum and substance of his reasons are as under:- i) The question of law before the Hon'ble High court was not that whether Amendments in the I.T. Act can…

Iljin Electric Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accoutant Member & Shri Saktijit Dey

…been expressed in the following decisions:– i) DIT v/s Toyo Engineering Corporation; ITA no.663/2011, 23.1.2013 ii) DIT v/s L.G. Global Ltd., 237 CTR 438; iii) National Petroleum Construction v/s DIT, 383 ITR 648; and iv) DIT v/s Siemens Akliongesellschaft, 310 ITR 320 (Bom.) 30. At this stage, it is necessary to deal with some of the propositions advanced by the learned Departmental Representative. Learned Departmental Representative observed, in terms of 31. provisions of section 5(2) r/w section 9 of the Act, source rule applies as per which if there is an economic or territorial nexus with the income rece…

Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla & Ita No. : 7589/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Van Oord Dredging & Marine Vs Addl. Director Of Income-Tax Contractors Bv, (International Taxation)-Range-2, 2Nd Floor, Central Plaza, First Floor, Room No.108, Cst Road, Kalina, Scindhia House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400 098 Mumbai -400 038 "थयी लेखा सं.:Pan : Aaach 3500 M अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Applicant By : "ी Shri Porus Kaka Respondent By : "ी Jshri N K Chand सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-10-2016 आदेश Order अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य: Per Amit Shukla, J.M.: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.10.2012, Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In Pursuance Of Direction Given By The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Under Section 144C(5) Vide Order Dated 29.09.2012, For The Assessment Year 2009-10. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Aw, The Learned Ao, Based On Directions Of Drp Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.24,80,29,144 (I.E. Management Service Fees Of Rs.22,57,89,998 & Reimbursement Of 2 Van Oord Dredging & Marine Contractors Bv

…to VOIPL. In support he relied upon the decision of ITAT “C” Bench, Mumbai in the case of Cairn Energy India Pty Ltd v ACIT, reported in [2009] 126 TTJ 226 and catena of other decisions, the list of which are as under: CIT v Siemens Aktiongeselschaft [2009] 310 ITR 320 (Bom High Court) DIT v A P Moller Maersk AS [2015] 374 ITR 497 (Bom High Court) CIT v Expeditors International(India) (P) Ltd.[2012] 209 Taxman 18 (Delhi High Court) CIT v Industrial Engineering Products Pvt Ltd [1993] 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi High Court) CIT v Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd [1983] 142 ITR 493 (Calcutta High Court) 11. As regards the issue a…

ITO 16(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Sucheta Bakul Patkar, Mumbai

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/2602/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer-16 (3)(4) Smt. Sucheta B. Patkar Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Jayakar Building, Avantikabai Gokhale Vs. Mumbai-400 007. Street, Opera House Mumbai-400 004. Pan:Aoppp 7947 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Kailash Gaikwad-Dr Assessee By: Shri Arvind Sonde & Shri Mathrudev Vasudevan सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 12.08.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dtd.28.01.2013,Of The Cit(A)-27,Mumbai,The Assessing Officer(Ao)Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee,An Individual,Is Engaged In The Business Of Distribution & Marketing Of Liquor Products,Filed Her Return Of Income On 24.09.2009,Declaring Income Of Rs.9.05 Lakhs.The Ao Completed The Assessment,U/S.143 (3) Of The Act,On 27.12.2011,Determining Her Income At Rs.73.36 Lakhs.

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी. एन एन. "साद "साद,"याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी एन एन "साद "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/2602/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income tax Officer-16 (3)(4) Smt. Sucheta B. Patkar Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Jayakar Building, Avantikabai Gokhale V…

The DDIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

…A No.: 4706/Mum/2009 361 ITR 575; Tribunal order in Atos Information Technology HK Ltd vs DCIT in ITAT Mumbai Bench in ITA No. 1464/Mum/2015; and also decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT. Vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft, reported in [2009] 310 ITR 320 which is in the context of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) brought by the Finance Act, 2007 and drew our specific to para 27 of the said judgment. He further submitted even in the context of DTAA also, the definition of ‘royalty’ under Income-tax Act will have to be applied and this view finds support from the decision of Hon’ble Madras High C…

Galatea Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Daym/S. Galatea Ltd. Dcit (International Taxation) P.O. 1156, Industrial Vs. Range 2(3)(2) Area, Dalton, Israel Mumbai Pan - Aadcg8396D Appellant Respondent

…by the law as amended and therefore the orders of the authorities below ought to be upheld. In support of this proportion the assessee, inter alia, relied on the following judicial pronouncements: - 5 M/s. Galatea Ltd. i) CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (310 ITR 320 (Bom) ii) Viacom 18 Media (P.) Ltd. (2014) 162 TTJ 336 (Mum) iii) CIT vs. CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants (P) Ltd. (2014) 48 Taxman.com 264 (Kar) 5.3 In rejoinder, the learned A.R. for the assessee reiterated that the issue in dispute for consideration in this appeal is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the C…

Joint DIT(It)-2, Mumbai vs. Saipem S.A., Mumbai

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & C.N.Prasad (Jm)

…AY 2006-07 and 2007-08 that reimbursement of travelling expenses is not liable to tax in assessee’s hand. The DRP placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Krupp Udhe GMBH (ITA No. 2626 of 2009) and Seimens Aktiogesellschaft (310 ITR 320) in this regard. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition relating to reimbursement of travelling expenses. With regard to living allowance paid to expatriates, learned CIT(A) deleted the same with following observations :- 6.3 It was further submitted that the Indian companies make payments directly…

Infor Global Solutions Barneveld) Bv ( Now Known As Infor (Barneveld) Bv), Hyderabad vs. DDIT (It) Cir 3(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue stands dismissed and that of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एल” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI "ी जी.एस. प"ू, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI G S PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. : 7048/Mum/2010 (Assessment year: 2006-07) ADIT(IT)-3(2), Vs M/s Baan Global B V now known as Scindia House, Information Global Solution R. No.132, 1st Floor, (Barneveld) BV, N M Road, A 301/302, Citi Point, Andheri Mumbai -400 038 Kurla Road, J B Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059 "थयी लेखा सं. PAN: AACCB 7688 Q अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Appella…

Infor Global Solutions Barneveld) Bv, Hyderabad vs. DDIT (It) Cir 3(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue stands dismissed and that of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एल” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI "ी जी.एस. प"ू, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI G S PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. : 7048/Mum/2010 (Assessment year: 2006-07) ADIT(IT)-3(2), Vs M/s Baan Global B V now known as Scindia House, Information Global Solution R. No.132, 1st Floor, (Barneveld) BV, N M Road, A 301/302, Citi Point, Andheri Mumbai -400 038 Kurla Road, J B Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059 "थयी लेखा सं. PAN: AACCB 7688 Q अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Appella…

ITO (It) TDS 3, Mumbai vs. Ssa Global Technologies (I) P.Ltd ( Formerly Knwona As Infor Global Solutions (I) P.Ltd), Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue stands dismissed and that of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एल” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI "ी जी.एस. प"ू, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI G S PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. : 7048/Mum/2010 (Assessment year: 2006-07) ADIT(IT)-3(2), Vs M/s Baan Global B V now known as Scindia House, Information Global Solution R. No.132, 1st Floor, (Barneveld) BV, N M Road, A 301/302, Citi Point, Andheri Mumbai -400 038 Kurla Road, J B Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059 "थयी लेखा सं. PAN: AACCB 7688 Q अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Appella…

ADIT (It) 3(2), Mumbai vs. Baan Global B.V. Now Known As Information Global Solution ( Barneveld) Bv, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue stands dismissed and that of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एल” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI "ी जी.एस. प"ू, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI G S PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. : 7048/Mum/2010 (Assessment year: 2006-07) ADIT(IT)-3(2), Vs M/s Baan Global B V now known as Scindia House, Information Global Solution R. No.132, 1st Floor, (Barneveld) BV, N M Road, A 301/302, Citi Point, Andheri Mumbai -400 038 Kurla Road, J B Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059 "थयी लेखा सं. PAN: AACCB 7688 Q अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Appella…

Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd ( Merged With Reliance Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS) (Ltu), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…4‘ was added to section 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976 to provide that all consideration for user of software shall be assessable as ―royalty―, the definition in the DTAA has been left unchanged. That in ―Siemens AG‖ 310 ITR 320 (Bom), it was held that amendments cannot be read into the treaty. As the assessee has opted to be assessed by the DTAA, the consideration cannot be assessed as ―royalty‖ despite the retrospective amendments to the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court as given in para 23 of the said decision, for the sake of convenience are…

Reliance Corporate It Park Ltd ( Formerly Relene Petrochemicals Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…4‘ was added to section 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976 to provide that all consideration for user of software shall be assessable as ―royalty―, the definition in the DTAA has been left unchanged. That in ―Siemens AG‖ 310 ITR 320 (Bom), it was held that amendments cannot be read into the treaty. As the assessee has opted to be assessed by the DTAA, the consideration cannot be assessed as ―royalty‖ despite the retrospective amendments to the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court as given in para 23 of the said decision, for the sake of convenience are…

DDIT(It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industrial Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…4‘ was added to section 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976 to provide that all consideration for user of software shall be assessable as ―royalty―, the definition in the DTAA has been left unchanged. That in ―Siemens AG‖ 310 ITR 320 (Bom), it was held that amendments cannot be read into the treaty. As the assessee has opted to be assessed by the DTAA, the consideration cannot be assessed as ―royalty‖ despite the retrospective amendments to the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court as given in para 23 of the said decision, for the sake of convenience are…

DDIT (It)2(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…4‘ was added to section 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976 to provide that all consideration for user of software shall be assessable as ―royalty―, the definition in the DTAA has been left unchanged. That in ―Siemens AG‖ 310 ITR 320 (Bom), it was held that amendments cannot be read into the treaty. As the assessee has opted to be assessed by the DTAA, the consideration cannot be assessed as ―royalty‖ despite the retrospective amendments to the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court as given in para 23 of the said decision, for the sake of convenience are…

DDIT (It)2(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…4‘ was added to section 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976 to provide that all consideration for user of software shall be assessable as ―royalty―, the definition in the DTAA has been left unchanged. That in ―Siemens AG‖ 310 ITR 320 (Bom), it was held that amendments cannot be read into the treaty. As the assessee has opted to be assessed by the DTAA, the consideration cannot be assessed as ―royalty‖ despite the retrospective amendments to the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court as given in para 23 of the said decision, for the sake of convenience are…

DDIT (It)2(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…4‘ was added to section 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976 to provide that all consideration for user of software shall be assessable as ―royalty―, the definition in the DTAA has been left unchanged. That in ―Siemens AG‖ 310 ITR 320 (Bom), it was held that amendments cannot be read into the treaty. As the assessee has opted to be assessed by the DTAA, the consideration cannot be assessed as ―royalty‖ despite the retrospective amendments to the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court as given in para 23 of the said decision, for the sake of convenience are…

DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…4‘ was added to section 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976 to provide that all consideration for user of software shall be assessable as ―royalty―, the definition in the DTAA has been left unchanged. That in ―Siemens AG‖ 310 ITR 320 (Bom), it was held that amendments cannot be read into the treaty. As the assessee has opted to be assessed by the DTAA, the consideration cannot be assessed as ―royalty‖ despite the retrospective amendments to the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court as given in para 23 of the said decision, for the sake of convenience are…

DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…4‘ was added to section 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976 to provide that all consideration for user of software shall be assessable as ―royalty―, the definition in the DTAA has been left unchanged. That in ―Siemens AG‖ 310 ITR 320 (Bom), it was held that amendments cannot be read into the treaty. As the assessee has opted to be assessed by the DTAA, the consideration cannot be assessed as ―royalty‖ despite the retrospective amendments to the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court as given in para 23 of the said decision, for the sake of convenience are…