Clifford Chance v. DCIT

318 ITR 237High Court2009#8973 most cited

What is Clifford Chance v. DCIT authority for?

For fees to be taxable as 'fees for technical services' under section 9(1)(vii), both the rendering and utilisation of services must occur in India. This twin condition, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Ishikawajma Harima, remains applicable.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Clifford Chance v. DCIT · 318 ITR 237 · section 9(1)(vii) · fees for technical services · services rendered in India · services utilised in India · Ishikawajma Harima · taxability of non-resident income · territorial nexus

Sections most often in play

Section 115ASection 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 250Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(vii)
Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Clifford Chance v. DCIT

Same Deutz Fahr Italia Spa, Italy vs. Assistant Commissioner, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 937/CHNY/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250o

…ourt by impugned order held that in view of admitted fact that services were utilized in USA, findings returned by Tribunal did not call for any interference - Whether SLP filed by revenue against said impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes" 3. [2009] 318 ITR 237 (Bombay) Clifford Chance Vs. DCIT 47.With the above understanding of Law laid down by the Apex Court, if one turns to the facts of the case in hand and examines them on the touchstone, section 9(1)(vii)(c) which clearly states 11 •••• where the fees are payable in respect of services utilized in a business or profession :-21-: ITA. No:937/Chny/2…

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…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Amol Dicalite Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 539/AHD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 539/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1246/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, Amol Dicalite Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Akshay, 53, Ahmedabad Shirmali Society Navrangpura, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.R
Section 40

…ed in India and also rendered in India as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ishikawajma Harima heavy industries Ltd (288 ITR 408). The assessee also contended that the same decision was followed by the Bombay high court in case of Clifford Chance (318 ITR 237). 9.1 The assessee also relied on the decision of ITAT Agra in case of Virola international (147 ITD 419) wherein it was held that the position for the fees of technical services cannot be taxed in India unless it is rendered in India, ITA nos.539/AHD/2018 & 1246/AHD/2016 Asstt. Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 5 has been changed by Finance Act 2010 w.…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Amol Dicalite Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1246/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 539/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1246/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, Amol Dicalite Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Akshay, 53, Ahmedabad Shirmali Society Navrangpura, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.R
Section 40

…ed in India and also rendered in India as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ishikawajma Harima heavy industries Ltd (288 ITR 408). The assessee also contended that the same decision was followed by the Bombay high court in case of Clifford Chance (318 ITR 237). 9.1 The assessee also relied on the decision of ITAT Agra in case of Virola international (147 ITD 419) wherein it was held that the position for the fees of technical services cannot be taxed in India unless it is rendered in India, ITA nos.539/AHD/2018 & 1246/AHD/2016 Asstt. Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 5 has been changed by Finance Act 2010 w.…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 283/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shuklaita

Section 195Section 195(2)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एल” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI "ी जी एस प"ू, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI G S PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBERITA ITA No. : 283/Mum/2012 (Assessment year: 2008-09) टाटा चे"मक"स "ल"मटेड Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED, Taxation), टाटा चे"मक"स "ल"मटेड Scindia House Ballard Estate, Scindia House, Mumbai Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400 038 "थयी लेखा सं.:PAN: AAACT 4059 M अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Appellant by : "ी अतुल सुरैया Shri…

Gifford & Partners Ltd.(Since Merged With Gifford LLP), Kolkata vs. ADIT (International Taxation) - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

ITA 1489/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…e head office of Appellant outside India, only because they were connected with permanent establishment. even in relation thereto, principle of apportionment shall apply.” Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Clifford Chance vs. DCIT (2008) 318 ITR 237 (Bom.) wherein the transaction entered into by the assessee partly took place in one territory and partly in another. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay referred to the decision in the case of Ishikawajma Harima (supra). The relevant extract is stated as under: "In the above judgement, Apex Court observed that "Section 9(J)(vii) of the Act must be…

Gifford & Partners Ltd.(Since Merged With Gifford LLP), Kolkata vs. DDIT, International Taxation - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

ITA 2082/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…e head office of Appellant outside India, only because they were connected with permanent establishment. even in relation thereto, principle of apportionment shall apply.” Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Clifford Chance vs. DCIT (2008) 318 ITR 237 (Bom.) wherein the transaction entered into by the assessee partly took place in one territory and partly in another. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay referred to the decision in the case of Ishikawajma Harima (supra). The relevant extract is stated as under: "In the above judgement, Apex Court observed that "Section 9(J)(vii) of the Act must be…

The DDIT(It)-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Clifford Chance LLP, Mumbai

ITA 2060/MUM/2008[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 1999-2000
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण,‘एल’ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “L” BENCH सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.5034/Mum/2004 ,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-1998-99 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ADIT(IT)-1(2) M…

ACIT, Circle - 52, Kolkata vs. Shri Subhotosh Majumdar, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 366/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. Srivastava, CITFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 5Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No.1629/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Shri Subhotosh Majumder Circle-52, Kolkata. (PAN: AGSPM8745N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No.366/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Subhotosh Majumder Circle-52, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No.2058/Kol/2009 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Subhotosh Majumder Circle-52, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of he…

DCIT, Circle-52, Kolkata vs. Sri Subhotosh Majumder . S. Jamumbder &Co, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1629/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. Srivastava, CITFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 5Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No.1629/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Shri Subhotosh Majumder Circle-52, Kolkata. (PAN: AGSPM8745N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No.366/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Subhotosh Majumder Circle-52, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No.2058/Kol/2009 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Subhotosh Majumder Circle-52, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of he…

ACIT, Circle - 52, Kolkata vs. Shri Subhotosh Majumder, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 2058/KOL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. Srivastava, CITFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 5Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No.1629/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Shri Subhotosh Majumder Circle-52, Kolkata. (PAN: AGSPM8745N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No.366/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Subhotosh Majumder Circle-52, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No.2058/Kol/2009 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Subhotosh Majumder Circle-52, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of he…

M/S J K Fabrics Bangalore Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 714/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Korra Meghanath Chowhan, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 2(30)Section 40Section 5(2)Section 6Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ITR 408 held that to attract section 9(1)(vii), two conditions are to be satisfied viz., services should be rendered Page 6 of 12 in lndia and such services should be utilised in India. The decision of the Bombay High Court in Clifford Chance v. DCIT 12009] 318 ITR 237 is an authority for the proposition that the ratio of Supreme Court in Ishikawajma Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. (supra) regarding twin criteria of rendering of service in India and its utilisation in India has not been done away with by the incorporation of Explanation to section 9(2) by Finance Act, 2007. Similar view was taken by the jurisdicti…

Clifford Chance v. DCIT (318 ITR 237) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax