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).

How many judgments cite CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft?

259 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (310 ITR 320), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 9(1)(vi), Section 9(1)(vii), Section 14(a)/14(b) of the Copyrights Act, Section 144C(13), Section 144C(5).

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (310 ITR 320)

Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. DCIT TDS, Indore

ITA 265/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 263

…) 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’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. New Skies Satellite BV & Ors. In ITA No. 473/2012 & Ors. Vide judgment dated 8.2.2016 has held as under:- “39. It is now essential to decide the second question i.e. whether the assessees in the present case will obtain any relie…

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. The CIT (TDS), Bhopal

ITA 415/IND/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 263

…) 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’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. New Skies Satellite BV & Ors. In ITA No. 473/2012 & Ors. Vide judgment dated 8.2.2016 has held as under:- “39. It is now essential to decide the second question i.e. whether the assessees in the present case will obtain any relie…

Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Mumbai vs. ACIT Range 2(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are partly allowed

ITA 731/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2019-22 With Assessment Year: 2020-21. Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Vs. Acit, Mumbai, Circle- Intl. Tax. 2(1)(1), 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 New Delhi Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra Pan :Aacci9974L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

…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 the…

Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 2(1) (1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1883/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2019-22 With Assessment Year: 2020-21. Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Vs. Acit, Mumbai, Circle- Intl. Tax. 2(1)(1), 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 New Delhi Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra Pan :Aacci9974L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

…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 the…

Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Maharashtra vs. ACIT (International Taxation) Circle 2(1)(1)-Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1717/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe, &

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

…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 the…

Kraft Foods Group Brands Llc, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2495/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Us Raising Following Grounds In Its Appeal: -

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

…ons of tax or the provisions of applicable tax treaty whichever is more beneficial. The assessee by relying on the following case law submitted that the reimbursement of expenditure is not taxable under the Income-tax Act. i. CIT v Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (220 CTR 425) Bombay High Court (Bom) ii. CIT v Industrial Engineering Products Pvt Ltd (202 ITR 1014) (Del-HC) iii. CIT v Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd (142 ITR 493) (Kol.) iv. Mahindra & Mahindra v DCIT (ITA No. 85 8597/Mum/2010) (Mum.) v. ADIT v Antwerp Diamond Bank Inv (ITA No. 7347/Mum/2007) (Mum.) vi. A.P.Moller Maersk v DCIT (ITA No. 8703, 8704/Mum/2010) (Mum.)…

Smit Singapore Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Int Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 816/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/w Ms. Miti ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chandip Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.816/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2020–21) Smit Singapore Pte. Ltd. Miti Shah & Associates C–605, Sushila Baug ……………. Appellant 53A, S.V. Road, Santacruz West Mumbai 400 054 PAN – AAOCS1031L v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent International Taxation Circle–4(2)(1), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Madhur Agrawal a/w Ms. Miti Shah Revenue by : Shri Chandip Singh Date of Hearing – 07/06/2023 Date of Order – 12/06/2023 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KAR…

DCIT (It)-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2866/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2866/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit(It)-4(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Reliance Jio Room No. 1712, 17Th Floor, Infocomm Ltd Vs. Air India Building, Nariman 3Rd Floor, Maker Point, Mumbai-400021. Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci6363G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nimesh Vora/Ms. Moksha Moksha Mehta Revenue By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/02/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Mumbai Dated 08.09.2022 For The Ay 2019-20. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Are As Under: - A. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That Tax Was Not Required To Be Deducted At Source On The Payment Made By The Assessee To Reliance Jio Infocomm Uk (Rjiuk) For Availing Bandwidth Services As It Did Not Amount To Income Of The Payee By Way Of Royalty U/S 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act, 1961 Read With Article 13 Of The India-Uk Dtaa. B. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld, Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That Tax Was Not Required To Be Deducted At Source On The Payment Made By The Assessee To Reliance Jio Infocomm Uk (Rjiuk) For Availing Bandwidth Services As It Did Not Amount To Income Of The Payee

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: None

Section 195Section 248Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…6 A.Y. 2019-20 Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. 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". 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 came up for consid…

Jefferies Llc, Mumbai vs. DCIT(It)3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5674/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejefferies Llc V. Dcit (It)-3(1)(1) C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp Room No. 1605, 16Th Floor 14Th Floor, The Ruby Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aaccj8881D (Appellant) (Respondent) Jefferies International Limited V. Dcit (It)-3(1)(1) C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp Room No. 1605, 16Th Floor 14Th Floor, The Ruby Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aabcj7041C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(24)(iva)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 9

…there is no element of income in the same: a. DIT vs. AP Moller Maersk (392 ITR 116) (SC) (Para 11) b. DIT vs. Krupp Udhe GMBH (354 ITR 173) (Bom.) (Para 6 and 7) c. CIT vs. Goldman Sachs India Finance Pvt. Ltd. (Bom.) (Para 3) d. Siemens Akstiongesellschaft (310 ITR 320) (Bom.) (Para 33) Ground No. 6 to 9-reimbursement of costs of Rs. 2,30,99,178 incurred on behalf of JIPL 9. At the outset the Appellant submits that the CIT(A) has made the following factually incorrect observations in his order: a. The CIT(A) in Para 5 on Page 36 of the order recorded as under: "Nature of these expenses which were reimbursed by…

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Forbes & Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4493/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr.Ketan Ved & Mr.AbdulkadirFor Respondent: Mr, Ankush Kapoor, CIT &

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 35A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHIR PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4493/Mum/2017 (A.Y:2013-14) DCIT – 1(1)(2) Vs. Forbes &Company Ltd 579, Aayakar Bhawan, Forbes Bldg, Charanjit MK Road, Rai Marg – 1, Fort, Mumbai -400020. Mumbai – 400001. PAN/GIR No. : AAACF1765A Appellant .. Respondent ITA No. 1682/Mum/2021 (A.Y:2016-17) Forbes & Company Ltd Vs. DCIT – 1(1)(2) Forbes Bldg, Charanjit 579, Aayakar Bhawan, Rai Marg – 1, Fort, MK Road, Mumbai –400001. Mumbai 400020. PAN/GIR No. : AAACF1765A Appellant .. Respondent Revenue by : Mr,…

DCIT - 1 (1) (2), Mumbai vs. Forbes & Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1002/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr.Ketan Ved & Mr.AbdulkadirFor Respondent: Mr, Ankush Kapoor, CIT &

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 35A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHIR PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4493/Mum/2017 (A.Y:2013-14) DCIT – 1(1)(2) Vs. Forbes &Company Ltd 579, Aayakar Bhawan, Forbes Bldg, Charanjit MK Road, Rai Marg – 1, Fort, Mumbai -400020. Mumbai – 400001. PAN/GIR No. : AAACF1765A Appellant .. Respondent ITA No. 1682/Mum/2021 (A.Y:2016-17) Forbes & Company Ltd Vs. DCIT – 1(1)(2) Forbes Bldg, Charanjit 579, Aayakar Bhawan, Rai Marg – 1, Fort, MK Road, Mumbai –400001. Mumbai 400020. PAN/GIR No. : AAACF1765A Appellant .. Respondent Revenue by : Mr,…

Income Tax Officer (It) 3 (2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (As Sucessor of Lodha Developers Ltd Which Was Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

ITA 783/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…P a g e | 1 4 Appeals ITO (IT)-3(2)(2) Vs. M/s Macrotech Developer Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 782 & 783/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2015-16 & 2016-17) Income Tax Officer (IT) Vs. M/s Macrotech Developer 3(2)(2), Room No. 1627, Ltd. (a s s uc c es s or of L odha Dev elop er 16th Floor, Air India Ltd. ) 412, Floor-4, 17 G Building, Nariman Point, Vardhaman Chamber, Mumbai – 400021 Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACL1490J Appellant…

Income Tax Officer (It) 3(2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (As Sucessor of Lodha Developers Ltd Which Was Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

ITA 782/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…P a g e | 1 4 Appeals ITO (IT)-3(2)(2) Vs. M/s Macrotech Developer Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 782 & 783/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2015-16 & 2016-17) Income Tax Officer (IT) Vs. M/s Macrotech Developer 3(2)(2), Room No. 1627, Ltd. (a s s uc c es s or of L odha Dev elop er 16th Floor, Air India Ltd. ) 412, Floor-4, 17 G Building, Nariman Point, Vardhaman Chamber, Mumbai – 400021 Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACL1490J Appellant…

Income Tax Officer (It) 3(2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

ITA 500/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…P a g e | 1 9 Appeals ITO (IT)-3(2)(2) Vs. M/s Macrotech Developer Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 497 to 500 & 784/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2014-15 to 2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer (IT) Vs. M/s Macrotech Developer 3(2)(2), Room No. 1627, Ltd. (a s s uc c es s or of L odha Dev elop er 16th Floor, Air India Ltd. w hic h wa s B e llis s iom o Crow n B uildmart Pv t. L td ) Building, Nariman Point, 412, Floor-4, 17 G Mumbai – 400021 Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort,…

Income Tax Officer (It) 3(2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Develope\Rs Ltd (As Sucessor of Lodha Developers Ltd Which Was Sucessor of Bellissimo Crown Builders P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

ITA 498/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…P a g e | 1 9 Appeals ITO (IT)-3(2)(2) Vs. M/s Macrotech Developer Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 497 to 500 & 784/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2014-15 to 2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer (IT) Vs. M/s Macrotech Developer 3(2)(2), Room No. 1627, Ltd. (a s s uc c es s or of L odha Dev elop er 16th Floor, Air India Ltd. w hic h wa s B e llis s iom o Crow n B uildmart Pv t. L td ) Building, Nariman Point, 412, Floor-4, 17 G Mumbai – 400021 Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort,…

Income Tax Officer (It), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (As Sucessor of Lodha Developers Ltd Which Was Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

ITA 497/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…P a g e | 1 9 Appeals ITO (IT)-3(2)(2) Vs. M/s Macrotech Developer Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 497 to 500 & 784/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2014-15 to 2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer (IT) Vs. M/s Macrotech Developer 3(2)(2), Room No. 1627, Ltd. (a s s uc c es s or of L odha Dev elop er 16th Floor, Air India Ltd. w hic h wa s B e llis s iom o Crow n B uildmart Pv t. L td ) Building, Nariman Point, 412, Floor-4, 17 G Mumbai – 400021 Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort,…

Aptean India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 422/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 422/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Aptean India Pvt. Ltd., 1/2, 8Th Floor, Level 5, The Assistant Golden Heights, Commissioner Of 59Th C Cross Road, Income Tax, 4Th M Block, Circle – 1(1)(1), Rajajinagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 010. Pan: Aaacc5890M Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-01-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 25/03/2022 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another General Ground 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Final Assessment Order Passed By National Faceless

For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar

Section 143(3)Section 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 422/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. Aptean India Pvt. Ltd., 1/2, 8th Floor, Level 5, The Assistant Golden Heights, Commissioner of 59th C Cross Road, Income Tax, 4th M Block, Circle – 1(1)(1), Rajajinagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 010. PAN: AAACC5890M APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee by Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT- Revenue by DR Date of Hearing : 03-11-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 20-01-2023 ORDER PER BEENA PILLA…

ACIT(It), Circle - 1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ixia Technologies International Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 6/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 6/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax(It)...Appellant Circle-1(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawanpoorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Ixia Technologies International Limited,..Respondent Plot No. Y-14, Block-Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata-700091 [Pan: Aacci3401L] Appearances By: Shri Amal Kamat, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Rahul Saha, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee

Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

…(1)(vi) by the Finance Act2012 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 CIT v."SiemensAktiongesellschaft [2009] 310 ITR 320/177 Taxman 81 (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…

Faurecia Automotive Holdings, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(It), Circle-1, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 488/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Chaugule, CAFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel – CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253Section 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…provision, if any, in DTAA. Such provisions of a DTAA shall prevail over the Act and work as an exception to or modification of sections 4 and 5. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom.). In the light of the above discussion, it becomes vivid that if the provisions of the Treaty are more beneficial to the assessee vis-a-vis its counterpart in the Act, then the assessee shall be entitled to be ruled by the provisions of the Treaty. 18.1. Having seen that the payment falls within the definition of `Fees for technical service…

ITO Ward - 61(1), New Delhi vs. Anish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue are dismissed on this score

ITA 1453/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anish Kumar Gupta CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 68

…neering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) and CIT vs. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. (1987) 165 ITR 416 (Cal) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) (Annexure), held, " payment by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of payer is not income chargeable to tax in the hands of payee." That, the action of Ld. A.O. by disallowing the expenses which was reimbursed by the RIL has become taxable income which was not permissible in the light of several judgments inclusive of the J…

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft

What is CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft

Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. DCIT TDS, Indore

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. The CIT (TDS), Bhopal

Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Mumbai vs. ACIT Range 2(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 2(1) (1), New Delhi

Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Maharashtra vs. ACIT (International Taxation) Circle 2(1)(1)-Delhi, Delhi

Kraft Foods Group Brands Llc, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3(1)(2), Mumbai

Smit Singapore Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Int Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

DCIT (It)-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd, Mumbai

Jefferies Llc, Mumbai vs. DCIT(It)3(1)(1), Mumbai

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Forbes & Company Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT - 1 (1) (2), Mumbai vs. Forbes & Company Ltd., Mumbai

Income Tax Officer (It) 3 (2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (As Sucessor of Lodha Developers Ltd Which Was Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Income Tax Officer (It) 3(2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (As Sucessor of Lodha Developers Ltd Which Was Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Income Tax Officer (It) 3(2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd, Mumbai

Income Tax Officer (It) 3(2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Develope\Rs Ltd (As Sucessor of Lodha Developers Ltd Which Was Sucessor of Bellissimo Crown Builders P. Ltd, Mumbai

Income Tax Officer (It), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (As Sucessor of Lodha Developers Ltd Which Was Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Aptean India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

ACIT(It), Circle - 1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ixia Technologies International Limited, Kolkata

Faurecia Automotive Holdings, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(It), Circle-1, Pune

ITO Ward - 61(1), New Delhi vs. Anish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi