CIT vs. Visakhapatnam Port Trust (1983) 144 ITR 146 (AP), Motorola Inc. v. DCIT

82 ITD 106Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2002#5174 most cited

What is CIT vs. Visakhapatnam Port Trust (1983) 144 ITR 146 (AP), Motorola Inc. v. DCIT authority for?

This case is authority for the proposition that the number of days spent by foreign enterprise in India should be counted based on the actual presence of employees or personnel, not by aggregating common days spent by multiple individuals.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Clifford Chance vs. DCIT · 82 ITD 106 · Mumbai Tribunal · man days · common days · employees · personnel · foreign enterprise · India

Sections most often in play

Section 1961: Section 139Section 1961: Section 143(3)Section 1961: Section 144C(13)Section 1961: Section 153Section 1961: Section 209(1)(d)Section 1961: Section 234ASection 1961: Section 234BSection 1961: Section 270A

Issues it is cited on

section 195section 9(1)(vii)permanent establishmentsection 194cfees for technical servicestax treatysection 9(1)non-residentsection 19section 194section 44double taxation

Judgments citing CIT vs. Visakhapatnam Port Trust (1983) 144 ITR 146 (AP), Motorola Inc. v. DCIT

CLIFFORD CHANCE PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE INT. TAX.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2020-21

ITA 3377/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandrasa No. 437/Del/2023

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 9

…oreign enterprise in India through employees or other personnel and not based on the man days by aggregating common days spent by more than one individual. In support he placed reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in Clifford Chance vs. DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 106 Mumbai and Linklaters LLP (supra). 8.4 He further submitted that the services provided by the assessee does not make available any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how which may enable the Indian client to be able to apply the same Clifford Chance PTE. Ltd. vs. ACIT independently and hence these are not in the nature of FTS under the…

CLIFFORD CHANCE PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIVIC CENTRE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2020-21

ITA 2681/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandrasa No. 437/Del/2023

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 9

…oreign enterprise in India through employees or other personnel and not based on the man days by aggregating common days spent by more than one individual. In support he placed reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in Clifford Chance vs. DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 106 Mumbai and Linklaters LLP (supra). 8.4 He further submitted that the services provided by the assessee does not make available any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how which may enable the Indian client to be able to apply the same Clifford Chance PTE. Ltd. vs. ACIT independently and hence these are not in the nature of FTS under the…

CHANDER MOHAN LAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 61(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 1869/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 194CSection 40A(2)

…: 220 CTR 425 vii. C.I.T. vs. Stewards and Llyods, 165 ITR 416 (Cal) viii. CIT vs. Sundwiger Emfg. & Co.: 262 ITR 116 (AP) ix. Mahindra & Mahindra: 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB)(MUM) x. Coca Cola India Inc. v. ACIT: (2006) 7 SOT 224 (Del) xi. Clifford Chance v. DCIT: 82 ITD 106 (Mum) xii. Hyder Consulting Ltd. v. CIT: 236 ITR 640 (AAR) xiii. DECTA v. CIT: 237 ITR 190 (AAR) xiv. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd: 309 ITR 356 (AAR) xv. GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT : 327 ITR 456 (SC) xvi. Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT : Civil (Appeal) No. 8733-8734 of 2018 (SC). xvii.…

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5163/DEL/2012[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5162/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5163/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Airports Authority Of India, Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds), Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Ward-1(1), Airport, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca6412D Assessee By : Sh. Ashish Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(6)(ii)Section 115A

…Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. [142 ITR 493 (Cal)] • Dectavs CIT [23 7 ITR 190 (AAR)] ITA No. 5162 & 5163/Del/2012 28 Airport Authority of India • Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Limited (2000) 245 ITR 823 • Siemens, 310 ITR 320 (Bom) ITAT • Clifford Chance, 82 ITD 106 (Bom) • Raymond Ltd., 86 ITD 791 (Bom) • Modicon Network, 14 SOT 204 (Del)  It was argued that from the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court as well as other High Courts that the reimbursement of expenses under no circumstances can be regarded as income. Therefore, in the instant case, what has been paid by the assessee to the non-r…

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5162/DEL/2012[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5162/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5163/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Airports Authority Of India, Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds), Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Ward-1(1), Airport, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca6412D Assessee By : Sh. Ashish Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(6)(ii)Section 115A

…Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. [142 ITR 493 (Cal)] • Dectavs CIT [23 7 ITR 190 (AAR)] ITA No. 5162 & 5163/Del/2012 28 Airport Authority of India • Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Limited (2000) 245 ITR 823 • Siemens, 310 ITR 320 (Bom) ITAT • Clifford Chance, 82 ITD 106 (Bom) • Raymond Ltd., 86 ITD 791 (Bom) • Modicon Network, 14 SOT 204 (Del)  It was argued that from the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court as well as other High Courts that the reimbursement of expenses under no circumstances can be regarded as income. Therefore, in the instant case, what has been paid by the assessee to the non-r…

HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD.,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 957/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 579/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Additional Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Range-1, International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 779/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Assistant Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Circle-1(2), International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 1762/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Additional Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Range-2(1), International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 957/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Precinct 3, Dubai International International Taxation, New Financial Centre (Difc), Delhi Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardhiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…e OECD MC, the number of days for Service PE is as per Calendar days regardless of the number of individuals performing such services during that day. This principle has also been upheld by the Mumbai Tribunal in Clifford Chance, United Kingdom v. DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 106 (MUM.) albeit in the context of Article 15 - Independent Personal Services wherein it was held that a similar rule is to be applied. viii.) In fact, we are currently compiling details of time spent on individual and separate projects (Mumbai and ITA No. 579/Del/2013, ITA No. 779/Del/2014, 24 ITA No. 1762/Del/2015 & ITA No. 957/Del/2016 Delhi) a…

HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1762/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 579/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Additional Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Range-1, International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 779/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Assistant Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Circle-1(2), International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 1762/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Additional Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Range-2(1), International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 957/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Precinct 3, Dubai International International Taxation, New Financial Centre (Difc), Delhi Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardhiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…e OECD MC, the number of days for Service PE is as per Calendar days regardless of the number of individuals performing such services during that day. This principle has also been upheld by the Mumbai Tribunal in Clifford Chance, United Kingdom v. DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 106 (MUM.) albeit in the context of Article 15 - Independent Personal Services wherein it was held that a similar rule is to be applied. viii.) In fact, we are currently compiling details of time spent on individual and separate projects (Mumbai and ITA No. 579/Del/2013, ITA No. 779/Del/2014, 24 ITA No. 1762/Del/2015 & ITA No. 957/Del/2016 Delhi) a…

M/S. HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 779/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 579/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Additional Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Range-1, International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 779/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Assistant Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Circle-1(2), International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 1762/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Additional Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Range-2(1), International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 957/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Precinct 3, Dubai International International Taxation, New Financial Centre (Difc), Delhi Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardhiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…e OECD MC, the number of days for Service PE is as per Calendar days regardless of the number of individuals performing such services during that day. This principle has also been upheld by the Mumbai Tribunal in Clifford Chance, United Kingdom v. DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 106 (MUM.) albeit in the context of Article 15 - Independent Personal Services wherein it was held that a similar rule is to be applied. viii.) In fact, we are currently compiling details of time spent on individual and separate projects (Mumbai and ITA No. 579/Del/2013, ITA No. 779/Del/2014, 24 ITA No. 1762/Del/2015 & ITA No. 957/Del/2016 Delhi) a…

M/S. HYATT INTERNATIONAL-SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD. vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 579/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 579/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Additional Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Range-1, International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 779/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Assistant Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Circle-1(2), International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 1762/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Additional Director Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Range-2(1), International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, New Delhi Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Ita No. 957/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Hyatt International-Southwest Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Precinct 3, Dubai International International Taxation, New Financial Centre (Difc), Delhi Po Box – 506727, Dubai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardhiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…e OECD MC, the number of days for Service PE is as per Calendar days regardless of the number of individuals performing such services during that day. This principle has also been upheld by the Mumbai Tribunal in Clifford Chance, United Kingdom v. DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 106 (MUM.) albeit in the context of Article 15 - Independent Personal Services wherein it was held that a similar rule is to be applied. viii.) In fact, we are currently compiling details of time spent on individual and separate projects (Mumbai and ITA No. 579/Del/2013, ITA No. 779/Del/2014, 24 ITA No. 1762/Del/2015 & ITA No. 957/Del/2016 Delhi) a…

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3296/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year:2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Robin Rawan, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Year:2007-08 DCIT M/s. Jas Forwarding Circle-4(1), World Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 407, 2nd Floor, A-Wing, 4th Floor, C.R. Commercial Complex, Vs. Building, I.P. Estate Radisson Hotel, NH-8, New Delhi – 110 002 New Delhi – 110 037 PAN AABCJ5564A (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year:2007-08 M/s. Jas Forwarding DCIT World Pvt. Ltd. Circle-4(1), 2nd Floor, A-Wing, Room No. 407, Vs. Commercial Complex, 4th Floor, C.R. Radisson Hotel, NH-8, Building, I.P. Estate New Delhi – 110 037…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JAS FORWARDING WORLD PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3222/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year:2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Robin Rawan, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Year:2007-08 DCIT M/s. Jas Forwarding Circle-4(1), World Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 407, 2nd Floor, A-Wing, 4th Floor, C.R. Commercial Complex, Vs. Building, I.P. Estate Radisson Hotel, NH-8, New Delhi – 110 002 New Delhi – 110 037 PAN AABCJ5564A (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year:2007-08 M/s. Jas Forwarding DCIT World Pvt. Ltd. Circle-4(1), 2nd Floor, A-Wing, Room No. 407, Vs. Commercial Complex, 4th Floor, C.R. Radisson Hotel, NH-8, Building, I.P. Estate New Delhi – 110 037…

M/S. LINKLATERS,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (I.T) - 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3250/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2019AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar

…st have rendered services in India for more than 90 days. Therefore, multiple counting of employee on a single day has to be avoided. In support of such contention, learned Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:– i) Clifford Chance v/s DCIT, [2002] 82 ITD 106 (Mum.); ii) ADIT v/s Valentine Maritime(Mauritius) Ltd. [2011] 45 SOT 34 (Mum); and iii) J Ray McDermott Eastern Hemisphere Ltd. v/s JCIT, [2010] 39 SOT 240 (Mum.); 7. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, neither before the Assessing Officer nor before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee has furnished proper documentary evi…

M/S. DOLPHIN DRILLING PTE. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

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

ITA 355/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…Ltd: 181 Taxman 257 (Del) • C.I.T. vs. Stewards and Llyods, 165 ITR 416 (Cal) • CIT vs. Sundwiger Emfg. & Co.: 262 ITR 116 (AP) • Mahindra & Mahindra: 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB)(MUM) • Coca Cola India Inc. v. ACIT: (2006) 7 SOT 224 (Del) • Clifford Chance v. DCIT: 82 ITD 106 (Mum) • Hyder Consulting Ltd. v. CIT: 236 ITR 640 (AAR) • DECTA v. CIT: 237 ITR 190 (AAR) • Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd: 309 ITR 356 (AAR) Since in the present case, the receipts of the appellant from DDL are pure reimbursements of cost incurred by the appellant for supplying the crew to DDL-IPO and cannot be treated as income of th…

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 3086/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…above expenses incurred was received. It held that the reimbursement of expenses could not be regarded as revenue receipts. Following the above decision, reimbursement of actual expenses were held not to be 'income' in case of Clifford Chance, United Kingdom (82 ITD 106) (Mumbai ITAT). In another case, Bombay Tribunal in the case of Arthur Anderson (unreported) held that where the reimbursement is of actual expenses supported by bill no fox should be deducted. In Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DC/T- [2005] 1 SOT896 (Mum), the ITAT held, after reviewing the case laws in the matter, that TDS u/s 795 is not required w…

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 2957/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…above expenses incurred was received. It held that the reimbursement of expenses could not be regarded as revenue receipts. Following the above decision, reimbursement of actual expenses were held not to be 'income' in case of Clifford Chance, United Kingdom (82 ITD 106) (Mumbai ITAT). In another case, Bombay Tribunal in the case of Arthur Anderson (unreported) held that where the reimbursement is of actual expenses supported by bill no fox should be deducted. In Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DC/T- [2005] 1 SOT896 (Mum), the ITAT held, after reviewing the case laws in the matter, that TDS u/s 795 is not required w…

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 817/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…above expenses incurred was received. It held that the reimbursement of expenses could not be regarded as revenue receipts. Following the above decision, reimbursement of actual expenses were held not to be 'income' in case of Clifford Chance, United Kingdom (82 ITD 106) (Mumbai ITAT). In another case, Bombay Tribunal in the case of Arthur Anderson (unreported) held that where the reimbursement is of actual expenses supported by bill no fox should be deducted. In Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DC/T- [2005] 1 SOT896 (Mum), the ITAT held, after reviewing the case laws in the matter, that TDS u/s 795 is not required w…

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 773/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…above expenses incurred was received. It held that the reimbursement of expenses could not be regarded as revenue receipts. Following the above decision, reimbursement of actual expenses were held not to be 'income' in case of Clifford Chance, United Kingdom (82 ITD 106) (Mumbai ITAT). In another case, Bombay Tribunal in the case of Arthur Anderson (unreported) held that where the reimbursement is of actual expenses supported by bill no fox should be deducted. In Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DC/T- [2005] 1 SOT896 (Mum), the ITAT held, after reviewing the case laws in the matter, that TDS u/s 795 is not required w…

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 692/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…above expenses incurred was received. It held that the reimbursement of expenses could not be regarded as revenue receipts. Following the above decision, reimbursement of actual expenses were held not to be 'income' in case of Clifford Chance, United Kingdom (82 ITD 106) (Mumbai ITAT). In another case, Bombay Tribunal in the case of Arthur Anderson (unreported) held that where the reimbursement is of actual expenses supported by bill no fox should be deducted. In Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DC/T- [2005] 1 SOT896 (Mum), the ITAT held, after reviewing the case laws in the matter, that TDS u/s 795 is not required w…

ELECTRICAL MATERIALS CENTER CO. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DY.D.I.T., BANGALORE

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

ITA 1104/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Raghunathan AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Neera Malhotra, CIT DR
Section 115ASection 143Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT (TP) A No. 1104 (Bang) 2013 (Assessment year : 2010 – 11) M/s Electrical material Center Co. Ltd., C/o ABB Ltd., 2nd Floor, East wing, Khanija Bhawan, No. 49, Race Course Road, Bangalore – 560001. PAN: AACCE6078R Appellant Vs DDIT (International Taxation), Circle – 1 (1), Bangalore. Respondent Assessee by : Shri S. Raghunathan Advocate Revenue by : Ms Neera Malhotra, CIT DR Date of hearing : 30-08-2017 Date of pronouncement : 28-09-2017 O R D E R PER…

ASST DIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. WNS GLOBAL SERVICES (UK) LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1406/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 115ASection 144C(3)Section 234B

…T v. Industrial Engineering. Projects (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Del) 4. CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd 142 ITR 493 (Cal) 5. JDITvs. Krupp UHDE GMBH[2009] 124 TIJ 219·(Mum ITAT) 6. DDIT vs. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.132 TTJ 566 (Mum ITAT) 7. Clifford Chance Vs DCIT 82 ITD 106 (Mum) 6 WNS 8. HCL Infosytems Ltd Vs OCIT 76 TTJ 505 (Delhi ITAT) 6.1. The Assessee also relied upon the order of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Wipro Ltd. (80 TTJ 191), wherein the Tribunal had observed that amounts payable by Wipro Ltd towards provision of international connectivity cannot constitute income taxable as royalty / FTS und…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2