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)

John Deere India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 905/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…tion or service which was otherwise taxed in terms of DTAA, or which was subject to lower rate of tax mandated by a treaty. Reliance in this regard was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Seimens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) and the Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Sanofi Pasteur Holding SA Vs. Dept. of Revenue and Others (2013) 354 ITR 316 (AP). Reliance was also placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court of Delhi in DIT Vs. Nokia Networks OY (2013) 358 ITR 259 (Del), wherein the context was the efficacy of interpretation given to Statute i…

M/S. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ADIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with above direction

ITA 1909/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT

Section 143Section 144C

…e tax was deductible therefrom. Hence the same need to be allowed as an expenses under the income tax act. 4.4 The assessee would like to place further reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft: 220 CTR 425 wherein it was held that reimbursement of expenses in respect technical assistance rendered by the assessee can, in no circumstances, be regarded as income of the assessee. 4.5 In view of the above facts and judicial precedent, the assessee humbly submits that no disallowance made by the Ld AO under Section 4o(a)(ia) of the Act on payments made t…

M/S. Pernod Ricard India P. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO(TDS), New Delhi

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

ITA 6640/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09 Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ito (Tds), Ltd., Building No.8A, 4Th Vs Ward – 3(2) Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Dlf New Delhi Phase-Ii, Gurgaon -122002 Pan Aaacs4781P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 201

…nt in CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC). 6. The question as to whether a reimbursement for expenses would form part of the taxable income is not res integra in so far as this court is concerned. In CIT v. Siemens Aktiorigesellschaft 120091 310 ITR 320/177 Taxman 81. a Division Bench of this court held that it was in agreement with the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. case (supra) and by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P.) Ltd. 119931 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi). The observations of this court in Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (supra) are as f…

Nunhems India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst.CIT, Circle 16(1)

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 1775/HYD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

…ontinue to be viewed as business profits under art. 7 of the treaty and since the assessee had no PE in India the business profits cannot be taxed in India." 43. Similarly, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft(2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) "Double taxation relief Agreement between India' and' Federal Republic of Germany-Royalty vis-a- vis industrial and commercial profits-Even though s. 9 would apply, provisions of DTAA, if more beneficial, would prevail- Assessee having no PE in India, amount of royalty, sought to be assessed as industrial or commercial profit, is not assess…

Nunhems India Private Limited, R.R.Dist vs. JCIT, Range 16, Hyderabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 327/HYD/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

…ontinue to be viewed as business profits under art. 7 of the treaty and since the assessee had no PE in India the business profits cannot be taxed in India." 43. Similarly, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft(2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) "Double taxation relief Agreement between India' and' Federal Republic of Germany-Royalty vis-a- vis industrial and commercial profits-Even though s. 9 would apply, provisions of DTAA, if more beneficial, would prevail- Assessee having no PE in India, amount of royalty, sought to be assessed as industrial or commercial profit, is not assess…

Nunhems India Pvt.Ltd., R.R.Dist vs. Addl.CIT, Range-16, Hyderabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 290/HYD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

…ontinue to be viewed as business profits under art. 7 of the treaty and since the assessee had no PE in India the business profits cannot be taxed in India." 43. Similarly, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft(2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) "Double taxation relief Agreement between India' and' Federal Republic of Germany-Royalty vis-a- vis industrial and commercial profits-Even though s. 9 would apply, provisions of DTAA, if more beneficial, would prevail- Assessee having no PE in India, amount of royalty, sought to be assessed as industrial or commercial profit, is not assess…

Spender Stuart (I) O, Ktd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 7117/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…r of the M/s. Spencer Staurt (I) Pvt. Ltd., payment is found to be in the nature of reimbursement of the expenses, it cannot be income chargeable to tax. Following judicial pronouncements also supports our view. 18.  CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft [2009] (310 ITR 320) (Bom)  DIT v. Krupp Udhe GmbH (354 ITR 1 73) (Bom)  CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. (202 ITR 10 14) (Del)  CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd (142 ITR 493) (Cat)  CIT vs Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd.: [1968] 67 ITR 95 (SC)  Societe Generate [2017] (81 taxmann.com 244) ( Mumbai - 1TAT)  British Gas India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT ( 1 1…

M/S.Us Technology Resources P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The DCIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 475/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR

Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM IT(TP)A No.475/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 IT(TP)A No.134/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 & SA No.08/Coch/2018 (Arising out of ITA No.475/Coch/2016) SA No.25/Coch/2016 (Arising out of ITA No.134/Coch/2016) M/s.US Technology The Dy.Commissioner of Resources Private Limited Vs. Income-tax, Circle – 2(1) 721/722, NILA, Trivandrum. Techno Park Campus Trivandrum-695 581. PAN : AAACU6085C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Raghunathan S., Advocate Respondent by : Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR…

M/S.Us Technology Resources P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 134/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR

Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM IT(TP)A No.475/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 IT(TP)A No.134/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 & SA No.08/Coch/2018 (Arising out of ITA No.475/Coch/2016) SA No.25/Coch/2016 (Arising out of ITA No.134/Coch/2016) M/s.US Technology The Dy.Commissioner of Resources Private Limited Vs. Income-tax, Circle – 2(1) 721/722, NILA, Trivandrum. Techno Park Campus Trivandrum-695 581. PAN : AAACU6085C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Raghunathan S., Advocate Respondent by : Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR…

M/S. Tata Technologies Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1433/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1433/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Tata Technologies Limited, Plot No.25, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hingewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aaact3092N Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent (International Taxation)-Ii, Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna and Arpitha ChoudaryFor Respondent: S/Shri Vivek Aggarwal and Mukesh Jha

Section 115ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90(2)

…tion or service which was otherwise taxed in terms of DTAA, or which was subject to lower rate of tax mandated by a treaty. Reliance in this regard was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Seimens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) and the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Sanofi Pasteur Holding SA Vs. Dept. of Revenue and Others (2013) 354 ITR 316 (AP). Reliance was also placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in DIT Vs. Nokia Networks OY (2013) 358 ITR 259 (Del), wherein the context was the efficacy of interpretation given to Statute i…

Cma Cgm Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6649/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 144C(13)Section 44B

…g business and could not he captured under any other provisions of the Income Tax Act except under DTAA." "Our attention is also drawn to the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Siemens Aktiongeselleschaft reported in [2009] 310 ITR 320 (Bom), wherein this Court has held that once there is a treaty between two sovereign nations, though it is open to a sovereign Legislature to amend its laws, a DTAA entered into by the Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 90(1) of the Act must be honoured. The provisions of Section 9 Income Tax Act were applicable and the pr…

Disney Broadcasting (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed, as above

ITA 262/MUM/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1290 To 1302 & 1303 To 1308/Mum/2016 (Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16)

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agarwal/For Respondent: Shri M.V.Rajguru

Section 195Section 195(2)

…t (supra). The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the said case reads as under:- “48. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Seimens United Home Entertainment Private Limited,& Disney Broadcasting (India) Limited. Aktiongessellschaft, [2009] 310 ITR 320 (Bom), the Bombay High Court citing R v. Melford Developments Inc. held that “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 tax under the expression “laws…

United Home Entertainment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed, as above

ITA 1289/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1290 To 1302 & 1303 To 1308/Mum/2016 (Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16)

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agarwal/For Respondent: Shri M.V.Rajguru

Section 195Section 195(2)

…t (supra). The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the said case reads as under:- “48. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Seimens United Home Entertainment Private Limited,& Disney Broadcasting (India) Limited. Aktiongessellschaft, [2009] 310 ITR 320 (Bom), the Bombay High Court citing R v. Melford Developments Inc. held that “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 tax under the expression “laws…

DCIT (It) 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. A.P. Moller Maersk A/S, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1743/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1743/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax A.P.Moller Maersk A/S (International Taxation) 1(1)(2) C/O Maersk Line India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.117,1St Floor बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Urmi Estate Scindia House, N.M.Road Vs. G.K.Marg,Lower Parel Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 013 Mumbai-400 038 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaeca-4801-C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Porus Kaka & DiveshFor Respondent: Samuel Darse,Ld.CIT(DR)

Section 44B

…ng business and could not he captured under any other provisions of the Income Tax Act except under DTAA.” “Our attention is also drawn to the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Siemens Aktiongeselleschaft reported in [2009] 310 ITR 320 (Bom), 9 A.P.Moller Maersk A/S Assessment Year 2012-13 wherein this Court has held that once there is a treaty between two sovereign nations, though it is open to a sovereign Legislature to amend its laws, a DTAA entered into by the Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 90(1) of the Act must be honoured. The provisions of Se…

M/S. T - 3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 826/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.826/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. T-3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd., D-Ii/65-1, Midc, Telco Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 …. Pan: Aacct9805F Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Arijit Chakravarty and Shraddha SwarupFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

…tion or service which was otherwise taxed in terms of DTAA, or which was subject to lower rate of tax mandated by a treaty. Reliance in this regard was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Seimens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) and the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Sanofi Pasteur Holding SA Vs. Dept. of Revenue and Others (2013) 354 ITR 316 (AP). Reliance was also placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in DIT Vs. Nokia Networks OY (2013) 358 ITR 259 (Del), wherein the context was the efficacy of interpretation given to Statute i…

India Soft Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DDIT (Int. Tax.)-I, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1712/PUN/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1709 To 1712/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, Addl. CIT

Section 195Section 201Section 5(2)Section 9

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , पुणे "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण पुणे "यायपीठ “ए” ” पुणे म" पुणे म" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण पुणे "यायपीठ पुणे "यायपीठ ” ” पुणे म" पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE "ी "ी डी "ी "ी डी डी. क"णाकरा डी क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव राव , लेखा राव लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य सद"य एवं एवं "ी एवं एवं "ी "ी िवकास "ी िवकास िवकास अव"थी िवकास अव"थी अव"थी, "याियक अव"थी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य केकेकेके सम" सद"य सम" सम" सम" BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / ITA Nos.1709…

India Soft Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DDIT (Int. Tax.)-I, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1711/PUN/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1709 To 1712/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, Addl. CIT

Section 195Section 201Section 5(2)Section 9

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , पुणे "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण पुणे "यायपीठ “ए” ” पुणे म" पुणे म" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण पुणे "यायपीठ पुणे "यायपीठ ” ” पुणे म" पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE "ी "ी डी "ी "ी डी डी. क"णाकरा डी क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव राव , लेखा राव लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य सद"य एवं एवं "ी एवं एवं "ी "ी िवकास "ी िवकास िवकास अव"थी िवकास अव"थी अव"थी, "याियक अव"थी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य केकेकेके सम" सद"य सम" सम" सम" BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / ITA Nos.1709…

India Soft Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DDIT (Int. Tax.)-I, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1709/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1709 To 1712/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, Addl. CIT

Section 195Section 201Section 5(2)Section 9

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , पुणे "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण पुणे "यायपीठ “ए” ” पुणे म" पुणे म" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण पुणे "यायपीठ पुणे "यायपीठ ” ” पुणे म" पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE "ी "ी डी "ी "ी डी डी. क"णाकरा डी क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव राव , लेखा राव लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य सद"य एवं एवं "ी एवं एवं "ी "ी िवकास "ी िवकास िवकास अव"थी िवकास अव"थी अव"थी, "याियक अव"थी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य केकेकेके सम" सद"य सम" सम" सम" BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / ITA Nos.1709…

Intech Billing Ireland, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1535/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manjunatha, Hon'Bleintec Billing Ireland V. The Assistant Director Of Income –Tax C/O S.R.B.C & Associates Llp (International Taxation), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Range 3(1), Scindia House, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai - 400 038 Dadar (West) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan No: Aadca 7890 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari Department By : Shri Samuel Darse

For Appellant: Shri M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…h Court in the case of 30 Intec Billing Ireland Infrasoft, supra and other cases which have been followed by the Mumbai Tribunal seem to have misquoted the Bombay High Court while saying that Bombay High court in the case of CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft, 310 ITR 320) (BOM HC) held that Amendments in the Act cannot be read into the DT AA. While appreciating the Siemens AG, (supra) the following facts may kindly be noted: (i) The exact question of law before the Hon'ble High Court was NOT that whether Amendments in the I.T. Act can be read into the DTAA or not and therefore, the Hon'ble High Court cannot be sa…

DCIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai vs. Purnandu Jain (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 927/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 926 & 927/Bang/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S. Shell India Markets Private Ito (International Taxations), Limited Ward 2(1), Bangalore बनाम/ Trent House, First Floor, G Block, (Now Transferred To Ito (Tds)- Vs. Plot No. C-60, Bandra Kurla Complex, Ltu, Mumbai)) Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaics1404 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Dinesh Patil ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. V. Rajguru

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru

Section 14Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…to the DTAA or not has to be considered on the anvil of ambulatory approach to interpretation of treaty, as against static approach adopted by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. He further submitted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens AG, 310 ITR 320 has approved the ambulatory approach. Ld. DR further submitted that eminent author Klaus vogel in his commentary has also supported ambulatory approach. According to this approach, law in force as per the domestic law would be law as it stands on the date of application of Treaty. As against this Static Approach considers that law in force as per…

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

John Deere India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax

M/S. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ADIT, New Delhi

M/S. Pernod Ricard India P. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO(TDS), New Delhi

Nunhems India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst.CIT, Circle 16(1)

Nunhems India Private Limited, R.R.Dist vs. JCIT, Range 16, Hyderabad

Nunhems India Pvt.Ltd., R.R.Dist vs. Addl.CIT, Range-16, Hyderabad

Spender Stuart (I) O, Ktd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

M/S.Us Technology Resources P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The DCIT, Trivandrum

M/S.Us Technology Resources P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

M/S. Tata Technologies Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax

Cma Cgm Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Disney Broadcasting (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai

United Home Entertainment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4 (3)(1), Mumbai

DCIT (It) 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. A.P. Moller Maersk A/S, Mumbai

M/S. T - 3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

India Soft Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DDIT (Int. Tax.)-I, Pune

India Soft Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DDIT (Int. Tax.)-I, Pune

India Soft Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DDIT (Int. Tax.)-I, Pune

Intech Billing Ireland, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 3(1), Mumbai

DCIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai vs. Purnandu Jain (HUF), Mumbai