CIT v. Toshoku Ltd.

47 ITD 275Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1993#9077 most cited

What is CIT v. Toshoku Ltd. authority for?

The transfer of title of goods, particularly when stated as FOB (Free On Board), is a significant factor in determining the transfer of ownership and associated risks and responsibilities between parties in international transactions.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2019.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Toshoku Ltd. · 47 ITD 275 · ITAT 1993 · transfer of title · FOB · risk and responsibility · international transaction · transfer of ownership

Judgments citing CIT v. Toshoku Ltd.

M/S Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 6385/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…from outside India. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i. Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited 288 ITR 408 (SC) ii. Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited 210 CTR 178 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. Alcatel 47 ITD 275 v. CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries 128 ITR 27 vi. Carborandum Co vs. CIT 108 ITR 335 As regards the risk and responsibility, the Ld. AR submitted that it is evident name of SSNNL as the consigner. This read with the provisions of Article 24.1 (Transfer of Ownership), clearly exhibits the intention of the contracting parties. Merely by stating that…

M/S Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 6384/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…from outside India. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i. Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited 288 ITR 408 (SC) ii. Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited 210 CTR 178 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. Alcatel 47 ITD 275 v. CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries 128 ITR 27 vi. Carborandum Co vs. CIT 108 ITR 335 As regards the risk and responsibility, the Ld. AR submitted that it is evident name of SSNNL as the consigner. This read with the provisions of Article 24.1 (Transfer of Ownership), clearly exhibits the intention of the contracting parties. Merely by stating that…

Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1114/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…from outside India. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i. Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited 288 ITR 408 (SC) ii. Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited 210 CTR 178 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. Alcatel 47 ITD 275 v. CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries 128 ITR 27 vi. Carborandum Co vs. CIT 108 ITR 335 As regards the risk and responsibility, the Ld. AR submitted that it is evident name of SSNNL as the consigner. This read with the provisions of Article 24.1 (Transfer of Ownership), clearly exhibits the intention of the contracting parties. Merely by stating that…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3714/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…from outside India. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i. Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited 288 ITR 408 (SC) ii. Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited 210 CTR 178 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. Alcatel 47 ITD 275 v. CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries 128 ITR 27 vi. Carborandum Co vs. CIT 108 ITR 335 As regards the risk and responsibility, the Ld. AR submitted that it is evident name of SSNNL as the consigner. This read with the provisions of Article 24.1 (Transfer of Ownership), clearly exhibits the intention of the contracting parties. Merely by stating that…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3713/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…from outside India. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i. Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited 288 ITR 408 (SC) ii. Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited 210 CTR 178 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. Alcatel 47 ITD 275 v. CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries 128 ITR 27 vi. Carborandum Co vs. CIT 108 ITR 335 As regards the risk and responsibility, the Ld. AR submitted that it is evident name of SSNNL as the consigner. This read with the provisions of Article 24.1 (Transfer of Ownership), clearly exhibits the intention of the contracting parties. Merely by stating that…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3696/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…from outside India. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i. Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited 288 ITR 408 (SC) ii. Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited 210 CTR 178 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. Alcatel 47 ITD 275 v. CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries 128 ITR 27 vi. Carborandum Co vs. CIT 108 ITR 335 As regards the risk and responsibility, the Ld. AR submitted that it is evident name of SSNNL as the consigner. This read with the provisions of Article 24.1 (Transfer of Ownership), clearly exhibits the intention of the contracting parties. Merely by stating that…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3695/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…from outside India. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i. Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited 288 ITR 408 (SC) ii. Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited 210 CTR 178 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. Alcatel 47 ITD 275 v. CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries 128 ITR 27 vi. Carborandum Co vs. CIT 108 ITR 335 As regards the risk and responsibility, the Ld. AR submitted that it is evident name of SSNNL as the consigner. This read with the provisions of Article 24.1 (Transfer of Ownership), clearly exhibits the intention of the contracting parties. Merely by stating that…

Sumitomo Corporation, Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3677/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…from outside India. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i. Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited 288 ITR 408 (SC) ii. Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited 210 CTR 178 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. Alcatel 47 ITD 275 v. CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries 128 ITR 27 vi. Carborandum Co vs. CIT 108 ITR 335 As regards the risk and responsibility, the Ld. AR submitted that it is evident name of SSNNL as the consigner. This read with the provisions of Article 24.1 (Transfer of Ownership), clearly exhibits the intention of the contracting parties. Merely by stating that…

Sumitomo Corporation, Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3676/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…from outside India. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i. Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited 288 ITR 408 (SC) ii. Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited 210 CTR 178 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. Alcatel 47 ITD 275 v. CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries 128 ITR 27 vi. Carborandum Co vs. CIT 108 ITR 335 As regards the risk and responsibility, the Ld. AR submitted that it is evident name of SSNNL as the consigner. This read with the provisions of Article 24.1 (Transfer of Ownership), clearly exhibits the intention of the contracting parties. Merely by stating that…

Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3675/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…from outside India. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i. Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited 288 ITR 408 (SC) ii. Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited 210 CTR 178 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. Alcatel 47 ITD 275 v. CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries 128 ITR 27 vi. Carborandum Co vs. CIT 108 ITR 335 As regards the risk and responsibility, the Ld. AR submitted that it is evident name of SSNNL as the consigner. This read with the provisions of Article 24.1 (Transfer of Ownership), clearly exhibits the intention of the contracting parties. Merely by stating that…

Hitt Holland Institute of Traffice Technology B.V vs. DCIT, International Taxation 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 390/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 390/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Hitt Holland Institute Of Traffic Technology B.V -Vs- Dcit, International Taxation, (Now Known As “Saab Technologies B.V.). Circle-1(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabch 5694 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Avisekh Kejriwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 390/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 HITT Holland Institute of Traffic Technology B.V -vs- DCIT, International Taxation, (now known as “Saab Technologies B.V.). Circle-1(1), Kolkata [PAN: AABCH 5694 R] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Avisekh Kejriwal, AR For the Respondent : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 21.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.04.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Learned…

Hitt Holland Institute of Traffic Technology B. V vs. DDIT, International Taxation 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 574/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hitt Holland Institute Of Traffic -Vs.- D.D.I.T. (Intl.T)-1, Technology B.V., Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabch 5694 R] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Agarwal, Ar For The Respondent : Shri.G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri.G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…nstallation PE' in India: Andhra Pradesh High Court in Commissioner v . Visakhapatnam Port Trust (1983) 144 ITR 146 (AP HC) Uhde Gmbh V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (1997) 57 TTJ 447 (Mumbai IT AT) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. CIT Alcatel (1993) 47 ITD 275 (Delhi ITAT) In light of the above submissions, it was argued that it cannot be concluded that 'Installation PE' in terms of Article 5(3) of the India Netherlands DTAA got created since no installation activity has been carried out by the Assessee in India in the subject year. 25 HIIT Holland Institute of Traffic Technology B.V. A.Yr..2010-11 35…

CIT v. Toshoku Ltd. (47 ITD 275) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax