CIT v. Toshoku Ltd.

125 ITR 525Supreme Court of India1980#295 most cited

What is CIT v. Toshoku Ltd. authority for?

A non-resident commission agent is not chargeable to tax in India on commission income if no business operations are carried out in India. Consequently, no TDS is required under Section 195 on such payments.

270

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Toshoku Ltd. · Toshoku Ltd. · Section 9(1)(i) · Section 195 · Section 40(a)(i) · non-resident commission agent · sales commission taxable in India · business connection · TDS on non-residents · DTAA override · deemed to accrue or arise

Sections most often in play

Section 40(a)(i)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 115JBSection 1961

Issues it is cited on

section 5(2)(b)section 9(1)(i)section 195(1)section 195(2)section 5(2)business connectionsection 40(a)(i)permanent establishmentfees for included servicessection 195section 9(1)section 9(1)(vii)

Judgments citing CIT v. Toshoku Ltd.

Gujarat Gas Tradiang Co.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2371/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Sept 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Gujarat Gas Trading Co Ltd
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ction 195 for failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B from the commission paid to BG Energy Holding Ltd., a non-resident company. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in relying upon the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd (125 ITR 525 SC) wherein the issue for AY 1962-63 was taxability of the commission payment and not applicability of TDS provisions to the said commission expenditure.” 36. We find that the grievance raised above is similar to the grievance raised by the Assessing Officer in his appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 vide ITA No.467/Ahd/2014. For the detailed dis…

The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda vs. M/S. Astral Pharmaceuticals Industries, Baroda

In the result, appeal, the appeal and cross-objection, both are dismissed

ITA 634/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: The Ao U/S 195(2) Of The Act, Though It Was Obligation Of The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Law In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Itself Has Deducted Service Tax From The Payments Made To M/S. Urja International, Usa Which Proves That The

Section 143(3)Section 195(2)Section 40

…he Explanation to 9(1) of the Act, then there is no question of deducting tax on such payments. The ITA No.634 & CO No.103/Ahd/2015 DCIT vs. Astral Pharmaceutical Ind. Assessment year: 2011-12 Page 4 of 29 Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Toshoku Ltd [1980] 125 ITR 525(SC) has categorically held that the commission amounts which were earned by the non-resident for services rendered outside India could not be deemed to be income which had either accrued or arisen in India. 3,3.3. Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of GE India Technology Cen. (P.) Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 456(SC) has held that the expression "chargeable…

The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda vs. M/S. Astral Pharmaceuticals Industries, Baroda

In the result, appeal, the appeal and cross-objection, both are dismissed

ITA 633/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: The Ao U/S 195(2) Of The Act, Though It Was Obligation Of The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Law In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Itself Has Deducted Service Tax

Section 143(3)Section 195(2)Section 40

…to an operation carried out by the non-resident commission agent in India as contemplated by clause (a) of the Explanation to 9(1) of the Act, then there is no question of deducting tax on such payments. The Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Toshoku Ltd [1980] 125 ITR 525(SC) has categorically held that the commission amounts which were earned by the non-resident for services rendered outside India could not be deemed to be income which had either accrued or arisen in India. 3,3.3. Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of GE India Technology Cen. (P.) Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 456(SC) has held that the expression "chargeable…

DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Goodricke Group Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 971/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 971/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Goodricke Group Ltd., Kolkata [Pan: Aabcg1614Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yadav, Addl. CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Rajendram, FCA
Section 143(3)

…ct tax u/s 195 and accordingly such payment cannot be disallowed under Clause a(i) of Section 40 of the Act. The ld AR also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 7 8 M/s Goodricke Group Ltd A.Yr.2007-08 case of CIT vs. Toshoku Limited (125 ITR 525 ) and emphasized the observations of the Court at page 531 which is an under: “In the instant case, the non-resident assessee did not carry on any business operations in taxable territories. They act as selling agents outside India. The receipt in India of the sale proceeds of tobacco remitted or caused to be remitted by the purchaser form abroad…

ITO (It), Kolkata vs. M/S. Electrosteel Casting Limited., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2249/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2249/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 I.T.O. (International Taxation), -Vs.- M/S. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaace 4975 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 201Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(i)

…Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd Vs DIT (288 ITR 408) and CIT Vs M/s. Hyundal Heavy Industries Co Ltd (291 ITR 482) On the issue of commission to foreign based agent, similar view has been taken by the Apex court in the case of CIT vs M/s.Toshoku Ltd (125 ITR 525 (SC). Similar view has been taken by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s. EON Technology (P) Ltd (15 Taxmann.com 391). Even the CSDT's Circular No. 163 dated 29.05.1975 and Circular No.786 dated 07.02.2000 make it clear that when no activity is carried out by non-resident commission agent in India, no income is arisen in India. This princi…

Ramlord Apparels, Mumbai vs. ACIT (A) 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6636/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Ramlord Apparels, Vs. Acit – Ward 25(3), Mumbai 9A, Akurli Road, Kandivali (East), Mumbai – 400 101 Pan/Gir No. Aaafr3183M Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit – Ward 25(3), Vs. M/S. Ramlord Apparels, Mumbai 9A, Akurli Road, Kandivali (East), Mumbai – 400 101 Pan/Gir No. Aaafr3183M Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40

…merges is that the agents in this case being located out of India and having their operations entirely' out of India, would not fall in the ambit of concept of "business connection". The decision of the Hon.ble Apex Court' in the case of CIT Vs. Toshoku Ltd. (125 ITR 525) is directly applicable in understanding the taxability of commission agent who does not carry out any business operations in India for the purpose of understanding the applicability of the Explanation to Section 9(1)(i) of the Act .. The same principle has been recognized in the decision of the Hon.ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Ardeshi B.…

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Elve Corporation, Mumbai

ITA 3565/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40

…nt/s outside India. This, in fact, is a pre-requisite for the application of section 195, as clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in G. E. India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC), with the Hon’ble Court per CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. [1980] 125 ITR 525 (SC) having clearly held in the context of commission that income earned by a non-resident for services rendered outside India could not be deemed to accrue or arise in India. The withdrawal of its Circulars Nos. 23 (dated 23.7.1961) and 786 (dated 7.2.2000) by the CBDT vide Circular No. 9/2007 dated 22.10.2009 is not retrospective, even as held…

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Elve Corporation, Mumbai

ITA 3564/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40

…nt/s outside India. This, in fact, is a pre-requisite for the application of section 195, as clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in G. E. India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC), with the Hon’ble Court per CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. [1980] 125 ITR 525 (SC) having clearly held in the context of commission that income earned by a non-resident for services rendered outside India could not be deemed to accrue or arise in India. The withdrawal of its Circulars Nos. 23 (dated 23.7.1961) and 786 (dated 7.2.2000) by the CBDT vide Circular No. 9/2007 dated 22.10.2009 is not retrospective, even as held…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mira Exim Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 125/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. Mira Exim Ltd. Circle-6(1), Room No.413, 523-24, World Trade C.R. Building I.P. Estate, Centre, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm 2066M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: S/Shri H.K. Chaudhary CIT-DR and Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…is paid. The payments involved are purely business profits covered under Article-7 of the DTAA with Germany. The assessee placed reliance on judicial ITA No.125/Del/2014 & CO No.256/Del/2014 10 pronouncement as below :- "In the case of CIT vs. Toshoka Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC) and Spahi Projects P. Ltd., In re 315 ITR 374 (AAR) , it has been held that amount of commission earned by nonresident foreign payees for rendering service outside India in connection with procuring export orders could not be deemed to be income arising in India." In the case of Cushman & Wakefield (2008) 305 ITR 208, it was held that there…

M/S Hero Honda Motors Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2148/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh C.M.Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Honda Motors Ltd, Dcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, Circle-12(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacg0812J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. AK Saroha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 9

…e ACT Page 33 of 34 No. 23 dated 23/07/1969 and circular No. 786 dated 7/2/2000 with respect to tax withholding on the issue of export commission for services rendered outside India. The assessee further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 125 ITR 525. Therefore it was submitted that the export commission is not chargeable to tax in India and no tax is required to be withheld from export commission paid by the assessee to Honda motor Co Ltd Japan. Further assessee explained rational for payment of export commission. On this basis Ld. assessing officer did not disallow any part of the export co…

Netapp B.V., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with above direction

ITA 4781/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishinet App B.V. Ddit, Circle-2(1), Boeing Avenue-300, 111Pz, International Tax, New Delhi Vs. Schiphol, Rijk, The Netherlands Pan: Aadcn2178C (Appellant) (Respondent) Net App B.V. Dcit, C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp, Circle- 2(2), Vs. 6Th Floor, Hindustan Times Bldg, International Taxation, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-300, Pan: Aadcn2178C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT Int Taxation
Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 44D

…paragraph 18.3. Though the reasons stated in paragraph 18.3 do appear to be widely and broadly stated, but keeping in view the mandate and the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court in CITv. R.D. Aggarwal & Co. [1965] 56 ITR 20, CITv. Toshoku Ltd. [1980] 125 ITR 525 (SC), Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT [2007] 288 ITR 408/158 Taxman 259 (SC) and the amendments incorporated and made to Section 9 (1)(i), it has to be held that business connection did exist, not because the assessees were associated enterprise or had a subsidiary in India, but because the e- Funds India was providing information…

ACIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. S.K. Age Exports, Mumbai

In the result all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5445/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.3348,3349&5445/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-16(3), Mumbai-400007 Vs. M/S S.K.Age Exports, 3-A, Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs 4534 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vivek Batra ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hari Raheja सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011- 12, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of I.T. Act. 2. Common Grievance Of The Revenue In All The Years Pertains To Deleting Disallowance Made On Account Of Payment Made For Export Commission On Which No Tds Was Deducted & Assessee Was Found To Be In Default By The Ao U/S.195 Of The I.T.Act. The Disallowance So Made By The Ao Was Deleted By The Cit(A) After Having Following Observation :- 2.4.6 Now I Proceed To Adjudicate On The Merits Of The Case. From The Facts Submitted, It Is Apparent That The Issue In Question Was Of Payment To A Non-Resident By Way Of Export Commission For Services Rendered Outside India On Which Payments Are Remitted Directly Abroad & As Such No Tax Was Required To Be Deducted U/S. 195 Of The Act. The Non-Resident Did Not Have Any Business Connection Or Dependent Agent In India & The Amount Paid Was Not Through Or From Any Property, Asset Or Source Of Income In India. As Such, The Amount Paid Is Not Income Which Is Chargeable Under The Provisions Of The Act & Hence, No Tax Was Deductible Therefrom. 2.4.7 I Am Fortified In The Above View By The Decision Of The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Batra
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 9

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘ई’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA Nos.3348,3349&5445/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) ACIT-16(3), Mumbai-400007 Vs. M/s S.K.Age Exports, 3-A, Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAAFS 4534 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Vivek Batra ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Hari Raheja सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing :…

ACIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. S.K. Age Exports, Mumbai

In the result all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3349/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.3348,3349&5445/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-16(3), Mumbai-400007 Vs. M/S S.K.Age Exports, 3-A, Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs 4534 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vivek Batra ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hari Raheja सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011- 12, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of I.T. Act. 2. Common Grievance Of The Revenue In All The Years Pertains To Deleting Disallowance Made On Account Of Payment Made For Export Commission On Which No Tds Was Deducted & Assessee Was Found To Be In Default By The Ao U/S.195 Of The I.T.Act. The Disallowance So Made By The Ao Was Deleted By The Cit(A) After Having Following Observation :- 2.4.6 Now I Proceed To Adjudicate On The Merits Of The Case. From The Facts Submitted, It Is Apparent That The Issue In Question Was Of Payment To A Non-Resident By Way Of Export Commission For Services Rendered Outside India On Which Payments Are Remitted Directly Abroad & As Such No Tax Was Required To Be Deducted U/S. 195 Of The Act. The Non-Resident Did Not Have Any Business Connection Or Dependent Agent In India & The Amount Paid Was Not Through Or From Any Property, Asset Or Source Of Income In India. As Such, The Amount Paid Is Not Income Which Is Chargeable Under The Provisions Of The Act & Hence, No Tax Was Deductible Therefrom. 2.4.7 I Am Fortified In The Above View By The Decision Of The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Batra
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 9

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘ई’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA Nos.3348,3349&5445/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) ACIT-16(3), Mumbai-400007 Vs. M/s S.K.Age Exports, 3-A, Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAAFS 4534 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Vivek Batra ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Hari Raheja सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing :…

ACIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. S.K. Age Exports, Mumbai

In the result all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3348/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.3348,3349&5445/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-16(3), Mumbai-400007 Vs. M/S S.K.Age Exports, 3-A, Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs 4534 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vivek Batra ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hari Raheja सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011- 12, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of I.T. Act. 2. Common Grievance Of The Revenue In All The Years Pertains To Deleting Disallowance Made On Account Of Payment Made For Export Commission On Which No Tds Was Deducted & Assessee Was Found To Be In Default By The Ao U/S.195 Of The I.T.Act. The Disallowance So Made By The Ao Was Deleted By The Cit(A) After Having Following Observation :- 2.4.6 Now I Proceed To Adjudicate On The Merits Of The Case. From The Facts Submitted, It Is Apparent That The Issue In Question Was Of Payment To A Non-Resident By Way Of Export Commission For Services Rendered Outside India On Which Payments Are Remitted Directly Abroad & As Such No Tax Was Required To Be Deducted U/S. 195 Of The Act. The Non-Resident Did Not Have Any Business Connection Or Dependent Agent In India & The Amount Paid Was Not Through Or From Any Property, Asset Or Source Of Income In India. As Such, The Amount Paid Is Not Income Which Is Chargeable Under The Provisions Of The Act & Hence, No Tax Was Deductible Therefrom. 2.4.7 I Am Fortified In The Above View By The Decision Of The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Batra
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 9

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘ई’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA Nos.3348,3349&5445/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) ACIT-16(3), Mumbai-400007 Vs. M/s S.K.Age Exports, 3-A, Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAAFS 4534 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Vivek Batra ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Hari Raheja सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing :…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. G Shoes Exports, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6209/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5736/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) G. Shoes Exports Asst. Cit-25(1)/Cit City 25 बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, 1, Hitex Industrial Estate, S. V. Road, Dahisar (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Mumbai-400 068 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfg 5376 P (Assessee) : (Revenue) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6209/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बनाम/ Asst. Cit-25(1), G. Shoes Exports Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 068 Vs. (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Radheshyam Jain : Shri Airiju Jaikaran Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.06.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 16.7.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 20.3.2013. 2

For Appellant: Shri Radheshyam Jain
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)

…in the case of CIT (Dy.) vs. Sanjiv Gupta [2011] 135 TTJ 641 (Luck). 8. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. As explained in CIT vs. R. D. Aggarwal & Co. [1965] 56 ITR 20 (SC), which stands referred to in CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. [1980] 125 ITR 525 (SC), and continues to govern the field, business connection involves the relationship between the business carried on by a non-resident (outside taxable territories), which yields profits or gains, and some activity in the taxable territories which contributes directly or indirectly to the earning of those profits and gains. It predicates an ele…

Agra Engineering Co., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby

ITA 2176/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1264/Mum/2011, I.T.A.No.736/Mum/2012 & 2176/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) M/S. Agra Engineering Co. Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ C/5, Laxmi Towers, Income Tax 12(3) Vs. 6Th Floor, Bkc, Bandra(East) Aayakar Bhavan, 1St Floor, Mumbai - 400051 R.No.137, M.K.Road, Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafa2297H

For Appellant: Shri Narayan AtalFor Respondent: Shri B.D.Naik
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘ए’ मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी आर. सी. शमा", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी अमरजीत "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1264/Mum/2011, I.T.A.No.736/Mum/2012 & 2176/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) M/s. Agra Engineering Co. Dy. Commissioner of बनाम/ C/5, Laxmi Towers, Income Tax 12(3) Vs. 6th Floor, BKC, Bandra(East) Aayakar Bhavan, 1st Floor, Mumbai - 400051 R.No.137, M.K.Road, Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAFA2297H .. (अपीला…

Agra Engineering Co., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby

ITA 1264/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1264/Mum/2011, I.T.A.No.736/Mum/2012 & 2176/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) M/S. Agra Engineering Co. Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ C/5, Laxmi Towers, Income Tax 12(3) Vs. 6Th Floor, Bkc, Bandra(East) Aayakar Bhavan, 1St Floor, Mumbai - 400051 R.No.137, M.K.Road, Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafa2297H

For Appellant: Shri Narayan AtalFor Respondent: Shri B.D.Naik
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘ए’ मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी आर. सी. शमा", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी अमरजीत "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1264/Mum/2011, I.T.A.No.736/Mum/2012 & 2176/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) M/s. Agra Engineering Co. Dy. Commissioner of बनाम/ C/5, Laxmi Towers, Income Tax 12(3) Vs. 6th Floor, BKC, Bandra(East) Aayakar Bhavan, 1st Floor, Mumbai - 400051 R.No.137, M.K.Road, Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAFA2297H .. (अपीला…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Minda Stoneridge Instuments Ltd., Delhi

In the result ground No. 5 and 6 of the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5896/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Minda Stoneridge Instruments Ltd., Circle-6(1), Room No.413, C. R. 36-A, Rajasthan Udyog Nagar, Delhi Vs. Building, Ip Estate, New Delhi Pan:Aaacm5600R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P Damvanunjna, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 35Section 40

…That being so there was no requirement of TDS u/s 195 and that being so there could be no disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) as held in the following judicial decisions" The appellant relied on the judicial decisions in the following cases:- • CIT vs. Toshoku Limited 125 ITR 525 (SO • GE India Technology 327 ITR 456 (SO • EON TECHNOLOGY (P) LTD (2012) 343 ITR 366 (Delhi) In the case of one of the group company of the appellant, M/s Minda Corporation Ltd., for A.Y. 2009-10, similar disallowances was made u/s 40A(1) of the Act. Based on the judicial pronouncement and facts of the case my Ld. predecessor CIT(A)-IX held, "th…

Intelsat Global Sales and Marketing Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for 22

ITA 516/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony]

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

…ceived in India by one of the Group Companies, he failed to examine the taxability of the assessee- company with reference to the income attributable to the alleged operations in India. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in CIT vs 3. Toshoku Ltd, 125 ITR 525 and Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd vs DIT, 288 ITR 408, the ld. Representative submitted that at the best, the Revenue can tax a portion of the income that may be attributable to the operations carried out in India. 4. Referring to Article 5(6) of India-UK DTAA, the ld. Representative submitted that a company which is a resident in UK…

Intelsat Global Sales & Marketing Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for 22

ITA 432/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony]

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

…ceived in India by one of the Group Companies, he failed to examine the taxability of the assessee- company with reference to the income attributable to the alleged operations in India. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in CIT vs 3. Toshoku Ltd, 125 ITR 525 and Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd vs DIT, 288 ITR 408, the ld. Representative submitted that at the best, the Revenue can tax a portion of the income that may be attributable to the operations carried out in India. 4. Referring to Article 5(6) of India-UK DTAA, the ld. Representative submitted that a company which is a resident in UK…