CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft

310 ITR 320High Court2009#324 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).

259

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 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

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-008733-008734 - 2018Supreme Court02 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…However, the above argument misses the vital point namely the assessee has opted to be governed by the treaty and the language of the said treaty differs from the amended Section 9 of the Act. It is categorically held in CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft, 310 ITR 320 (Bom) that the amendments cannot be read into the treaty. On the wording of the treaty, we have already held in Ericsson (supra) that a copyrighted article does not fall within the purview of Royalty. Therefore, we decide question of law no. 1 & 2 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” (page 281) 43 Notification No. 36/201…

Kimberly Clark Lever P.Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2481/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Garg
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…L. Therefore, in the absence of income in the hands of the payee, the question of deduction of tax at source does not arise having regard to the ratio of the judgement of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft, 310 ITR 320 wherein the Hon’ble High Court referring to the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Industrial Engineering Projects (P.) Ltd., 202 ITR 1014 and the judgement of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., 142 ITR 493 had affirmed the view of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case o…

Essity Hygiene and Helath Ab, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 7315/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)

…element, and, therefore, when a receipt by the assessee is bereft of income element, as a pure reimbursement inherently is, it cannot be brought to tax in the hands of that assessee. Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, in the case of CIT Vs Siemens AG [(2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom)], have accepted this proposition and observed as follows: That leaves us with the last contention as to whether the amounts by way of reimbursement are liable to tax. To answer that issue, we may gainfully refer to Assessment year: 2015-16 Page 4 of 19 the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Industrial Engineering Projec…

The Director of Income Tax vs. M/S Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/214/2014HC Karnataka01 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 260Section 260ASection 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.214 OF 2014 BETWEEN: 1. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE -1 (1) RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S ABBEY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. THE RESIDENCY, 7TH FLOOR 133/1, RESIDENCY ROAD BANGALOR…

Smit Singapoare Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) Cir 4(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7055/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodsmit Singapore Pte Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Srbc & Associates, Of Income-Tax (I.T.)-4(2)(1), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Vs. 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai- 400028 Pan – Aaocs1031L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R Respondent By: Shri Sanjay Singh & Shri T.S. Khaisa, Cit, D.Rs Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh &
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

…in the event they are more beneficial to him. A similar view has been arrived at by the Hon’ble High Court of Smit Singapore Pte. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (IT)-4(2)(1) 20 ITA No.7055/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Siemens Aktionlesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom). In the said case, it was inter alia observed by the Hon‘ble High Court that though provisions of Sec. 9 of the Act would be applicable, however, considering the provisions of the DTAA if beneficial than the provisions of the IT Act, the provisions of DTAA would prevail. 17. In the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, we shall test the…

Inmarsat Global Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7025/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodinmarsat Global Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Tax (International Taxation) 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Circle 2(2)(1), 17Th Floor, Vs. 20 Senapati Bapat Marg, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Dadar (W), Mumbai 400 028 Mumbai 400 021 Pan – Aaaci6098K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 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…

DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi vs. M/S. Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeal

ITA 6733/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 9

…etworks OY & Others [2013] 358 ITR 259 (Del) held as under:- “the assessee has opted to be governed by the treaty and the language of the said treaty differs from the amended Section 9 of the Act. It is categorically held in CIT vs Siemens Aktiongesellschaft 310 ITR 320 (Bom) that the amendments cannot be read into the Treaty.” 22. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Reliance Infocomm Ltd. Income Tax Appeal No.1395 of 2016 dated 05.02.2019 held that “mere Assessment Years 2011-12 & Others amendments in the Act would not override the provisions of Double tax Avoidance Agreement”. 23. In the above-said f…

M/S Telstra Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeal

ITA 286/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 9

…etworks OY & Others [2013] 358 ITR 259 (Del) held as under:- “the assessee has opted to be governed by the treaty and the language of the said treaty differs from the amended Section 9 of the Act. It is categorically held in CIT vs Siemens Aktiongesellschaft 310 ITR 320 (Bom) that the amendments cannot be read into the Treaty.” 22. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Reliance Infocomm Ltd. Income Tax Appeal No.1395 of 2016 dated 05.02.2019 held that “mere Assessment Years 2011-12 & Others amendments in the Act would not override the provisions of Double tax Avoidance Agreement”. 23. In the above-said f…

Telstra Singapore Pte. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeal

ITA 1548/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 9

…etworks OY & Others [2013] 358 ITR 259 (Del) held as under:- “the assessee has opted to be governed by the treaty and the language of the said treaty differs from the amended Section 9 of the Act. It is categorically held in CIT vs Siemens Aktiongesellschaft 310 ITR 320 (Bom) that the amendments cannot be read into the Treaty.” 22. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Reliance Infocomm Ltd. Income Tax Appeal No.1395 of 2016 dated 05.02.2019 held that “mere Assessment Years 2011-12 & Others amendments in the Act would not override the provisions of Double tax Avoidance Agreement”. 23. In the above-said f…

Telstra Singapore Pte. Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeal

ITA 3020/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 9

…etworks OY & Others [2013] 358 ITR 259 (Del) held as under:- “the assessee has opted to be governed by the treaty and the language of the said treaty differs from the amended Section 9 of the Act. It is categorically held in CIT vs Siemens Aktiongesellschaft 310 ITR 320 (Bom) that the amendments cannot be read into the Treaty.” 22. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Reliance Infocomm Ltd. Income Tax Appeal No.1395 of 2016 dated 05.02.2019 held that “mere Assessment Years 2011-12 & Others amendments in the Act would not override the provisions of Double tax Avoidance Agreement”. 23. In the above-said f…

Sofina S.A., Mumbai vs. ACIT (It)-4(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7241/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhansofina S.A. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Rue De L‟Industrie 31, Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(2) B-1040, Brussels, Room No. 1624, 16Th Floor, Vs. Belgium Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aakcs3013Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate & Shri. Manish Kanth Respondent By: Shri G.N. Makwana, D.R

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate & Shri. ManishFor Respondent: Shri G.N. Makwana, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(i)

…his aforesaid claim the ld. A.R relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in Director of Income-tax Vs. New Skies Satellite BV (2016) 382 ITR 114 (Delhi) and that of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in CIT Vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom). Apart from that, the ld. A.R in order to fortify his claim that the „Explanation 5‟ to Sec. 9(1)(i) of the Act cannot override the provisions of the DTAA, therein drew support from the speech of the Finance Minister, dated May 7, 2012, as regards the introduction of the provisions relating to indirect transfer of shares that was made avail…

Sandvik Machining Solution Ab, (Formerly Known As) Sandvik Tolling Severige Ab), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, (It), Circle -2, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1319/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Alok Malviya
Section 143(2)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “सी” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1319/PUN/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sandvik Maching Solutions AB ………. अपीलाथ" / (formerly known as Sandvik Tolling Appellant Sverige AB), C/o. Sandvic Asia Private Limted, Mumbai – Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune. PAN : AAKCS4689N. बनाम v/s The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, ………. ""यथ" / (International Taxation), Circle – 2, Respondent Pune. Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak. Revenue by : Shri Alok Malviya…

DCIT, Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai vs. Balaji Impex, Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 539/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Kisnadwala - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik - Ld.DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…ursements. The decision of this Tribunal in Utility Powertech Ltd. V/s ACIT (ITA No. 2561/Mum/2009) also supports the same view. This decision has been rendered after considering the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (310 ITR 320). Therefore, we find no fault in the action of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the same by relying upon the order for AY 2012-13. This ground stands dismissed. Conclusion 9. The assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05/02/2020. (Mahavir Singh) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) उपा"…

Cma Cgm Agencies India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Range -1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2314/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cma Cgm Agencies India Private Vs. Dcit, Range-1(1), Limited, Pune 407, City Tower Floor, Boat Club Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aadcc3951G Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…e subjected to the more beneficial provision out of the two, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar (2004) 267 ITR 654 (SC) and the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom.). 26. Having seen the position under the Act, now we proceed to examine the position under the DTAA with France. Article 13 of the DTAA deals with: `Royalties and Fees for Technical Services and Payments for the use of Equipment.’ It is not the case of the AO that the amount paid by the assessee is in the 26 CMA CGM Agencies India Pvt.…

Value First Digital Media Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-26(1), New Delhi

ITA 487/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40Section 72ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…he Ld. AR also relied upon following decisions on the preposition that unilateral amendment cannot have a binding effect on a Tax Treaty and retrospective amendment in the Act cannot create any liability on the assessee: i) CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft 310 ITR 320 (Bom HC) ii) DIT vs. Nokia Network OY 358 ITR 259 (Del HC) iii) DIT vs. Infrasoft Ltd. 220 Taxman 274 (Del HC) iv) Ashok Piramal Management Corpn. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 161 ITD 234 v) Holcim Services South Asia Ltd. vs. DCIT 157 ITD 892 (Mum Tri.) The Ld. AR has also given an alternate submission that the services and the expenses have incurre…

M/S Value First Digital Media Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4389/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40Section 72ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…he Ld. AR also relied upon following decisions on the preposition that unilateral amendment cannot have a binding effect on a Tax Treaty and retrospective amendment in the Act cannot create any liability on the assessee: i) CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft 310 ITR 320 (Bom HC) ii) DIT vs. Nokia Network OY 358 ITR 259 (Del HC) iii) DIT vs. Infrasoft Ltd. 220 Taxman 274 (Del HC) iv) Ashok Piramal Management Corpn. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 161 ITD 234 v) Holcim Services South Asia Ltd. vs. DCIT 157 ITD 892 (Mum Tri.) The Ld. AR has also given an alternate submission that the services and the expenses have incurre…

ACIT (It) -4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 6334/MUM/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 195ASection 248Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…e Hon'ble High Court in its aforesaid judgment had after referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV [2016] 382 ITR 114/238 Taxman 577/68 taxmann.com 8 and CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft [2009] 310 ITR 320 (Bom)] had after deliberating on the amendment made available on the statute by the Explanation 6 to Sec. 9(1)(vi), observed that mere amendment in the I-T Act would not override the provisions of DTAA treaties. In the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, we shall now further deliberate on the definition of “royalty‟ as contemplated in the Ind…

ACIT (It) -4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 6333/MUM/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 195ASection 248Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…e Hon'ble High Court in its aforesaid judgment had after referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV [2016] 382 ITR 114/238 Taxman 577/68 taxmann.com 8 and CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft [2009] 310 ITR 320 (Bom)] had after deliberating on the amendment made available on the statute by the Explanation 6 to Sec. 9(1)(vi), observed that mere amendment in the I-T Act would not override the provisions of DTAA treaties. In the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, we shall now further deliberate on the definition of “royalty‟ as contemplated in the Ind…

ACIT (It) -4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 6332/MUM/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 195ASection 248Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…e Hon'ble High Court in its aforesaid judgment had after referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV [2016] 382 ITR 114/238 Taxman 577/68 taxmann.com 8 and CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft [2009] 310 ITR 320 (Bom)] had after deliberating on the amendment made available on the statute by the Explanation 6 to Sec. 9(1)(vi), observed that mere amendment in the I-T Act would not override the provisions of DTAA treaties. In the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, we shall now further deliberate on the definition of “royalty‟ as contemplated in the Ind…

ITO (International Taxation), New Delhi vs. M/S. Tv Today India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4408/DEL/2016[2012-13 (F.Y. 2011-12)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2019

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4408/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Tv Today India Pvt. Ltd., F-26, 1St Floor, Connaught Circus, International Taxation, Ward- 3(1)(1), New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct0424B Assessee By : Sh. Salil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-43, New Delhi Dated 30.05.2016. Issue Of Payment For Transponder Charges.

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 4408/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/s TV Today India Pvt. Ltd., F-26, 1st Floor, Connaught Circus, International Taxation, Ward- 3(1)(1), New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCT0424B Assessee by : Sh. Salil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 14.10.2019 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the reve…