Clifford Chance v. DCIT

318 ITR 237High Court2009#9172 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Judgments citing Clifford Chance v. DCIT

M/S. DMG MORI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY DMG MORI SEIKI INDIA MACHINES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 11(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 165/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 165/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Dmg Mori India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines & The Deputy Services Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 3/1, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Kiadb, Peenya, 1St Stage, Circle – 11(1), Ward No. 1, Hmt, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aabcd0003E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vikram, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Cit(Appeals) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act (Rs.2,76,24,000/-) 2.1. Disallowance U/S.40(A)(I) Unwarranted: The Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Payments Made To M/S R.S Mail Limited , United Kingdom

For Appellant: Shri Vikram, Advocate
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

…clearly excluded from purview of fee for technical services, fees paid in respect of services as well as business promotion carried on by a non-resident outside India. 5.11 Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Clifford Chance v. Deputy CIT reported in (2009) 318 ITR 237, wherein Hon’ble Court, was considering taxability of income of a nonresident falling under section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act, having regards to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ishikwajima reported in (2007) 208 ITR 408, held as under,: “Reading the provision in its plain sense, as per the Apex Court it requires two conditions to b…