CLSA Ltd. v. ITO(IT)

305 ITR 208Reported decision2008#5598 most cited
21

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

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 139(1) of the Income Tax ActSection 139(9) of the Income Tax ActSection 143(3) of the Income Tax ActSection 144C of the Income Tax ActSection 144C(1) of the Income Tax ActSection 195 of the Income Tax ActSection 270A of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 40(a)(1)section 248section 9(1)(vii)(b)section 195(1)section 195(2)fees for included servicesinterest free advancesbusiness connectionsection 9(1)(vi)section 9(1)(vii)section 40(a)(i)enduring benefit

Judgments citing CLSA Ltd. v. ITO(IT)

RANE ENGINE VALVE LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 885/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…AR) , 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 was no expertise or know-how which was made available to CWI by reason of rendering service of a managerial, technical or consultancy nature. Some sort of durability or permanency of result of rendering of services was envisaged. The referral fee paid by the Indian company was not "fee for technical services" under section…

RANE ENGINE VALVE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 2815/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…AR) , 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 was no expertise or know-how which was made available to CWI by reason of rendering service of a managerial, technical or consultancy nature. Some sort of durability or permanency of result of rendering of services was envisaged. The referral fee paid by the Indian company was not "fee for technical services" under section…

RANE ENGINE VALVE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 1477/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…AR) , 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 was no expertise or know-how which was made available to CWI by reason of rendering service of a managerial, technical or consultancy nature. Some sort of durability or permanency of result of rendering of services was envisaged. The referral fee paid by the Indian company was not "fee for technical services" under section…

RANE ENGINE VALVES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 1498/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…AR) , 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 was no expertise or know-how which was made available to CWI by reason of rendering service of a managerial, technical or consultancy nature. Some sort of durability or permanency of result of rendering of services was envisaged. The referral fee paid by the Indian company was not "fee for technical services" under section…

RANE ENGINE VALVES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 1497/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…AR) , 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 was no expertise or know-how which was made available to CWI by reason of rendering service of a managerial, technical or consultancy nature. Some sort of durability or permanency of result of rendering of services was envisaged. The referral fee paid by the Indian company was not "fee for technical services" under section…

SNC LAVALIN INC.,DELHI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT. TAX 3(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed, the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3691/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

…It is in this context that we have to examine the scope of expression 'make available'.” 8 SA No. 36/Del/2024 SNC Lavalin Inc. 18. Similar views expressed by various forums of the judiciary in a plethora of judgments:  Cushman and Wakefield Pte. Ltd (2008) 305 ITR 208 (AAR)  Invensys Systems Inc., In Re (2009) 317 ITR 438 (AAR)  Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (2010) 320 ITR 124 (AAR)  Ernst & Young (P) Ltd (2010) 323 ITR 184 (AAR)  R. R. Donelley India Outsource Private Ltd (2010) 241 CTR 305 (AAR)  C.E.S.C. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (2003) 87 ITD 653 (Kolkata)  Ra…

M/S. GRANT THORNTON ADVISORY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3259/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…with the person utilizing the services even after the particular transaction is over or even after the particular contract comes to an end. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions: (a) Cushman & Wakefiled (S) Pte. Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 208 (b) Sandvik Australia Pty. Ltd. Vs. DDIT (International Taxation) (2013) 141 ITD 598 (Pune) (c) CIT Vs De Beers India Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 346ITR 467 (Karn) (d) ISR0 Satellite Centre (ISAC) (2008) 307 ITR 59 (AAR) (e) Intertek Testing Services India (P) Ltd. Vs. Authority for Advance Rulings (2008) 307 ITR 418 (f) BharatiAxa General Ins…

M/S. MIRA EXIM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3714/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

Section 234Section 40

…Services (FTS) under Explanation 7 to section 9(2), similar treatment would arise. As far as this is concerned, the Court notices that the ITAT relied upon the interpretation given to similar provisions of various DTAAs in Cushman & Wakefield Pte. Ltd. in Re.305 ITR 208; Dieter Eberhard Gustav v CIT 235 ITR 698 etc. and held that since these were not in the nature of FTS., the deduction under section 40(a)(ia) was not warranted. Reliance by the Revenue upon the retrospective amendment, in the opinions of this Court, is not justified, given the ruling in Director of Income tax vs New Skies Satellite BVV (2016) 38…

M/S. MIRA EXIM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3713/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

Section 234Section 40

…Services (FTS) under Explanation 7 to section 9(2), similar treatment would arise. As far as this is concerned, the Court notices that the ITAT relied upon the interpretation given to similar provisions of various DTAAs in Cushman & Wakefield Pte. Ltd. in Re.305 ITR 208; Dieter Eberhard Gustav v CIT 235 ITR 698 etc. and held that since these were not in the nature of FTS., the deduction under section 40(a)(ia) was not warranted. Reliance by the Revenue upon the retrospective amendment, in the opinions of this Court, is not justified, given the ruling in Director of Income tax vs New Skies Satellite BVV (2016) 38…

M/S ECORYS NEDERLANDS B.V.,,DELHI vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 6494/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT (DR)
Section 40

…o an end. The recipient of service must be able to absorb and apply the technology on its own in its future activities. …………” 3.7 The Ld. CIT(A) in support of his finding, has relied on following decisions: a) Cushman & Wakefiled (S) Pte., reported in (2008) 305 ITR 208; b) Sandvik Australia Pty. Ltd. Vs. DDIT (International Taxation),reported in (2013) 141 ITD 598 (Pune); c) CIT Vs. De Beers India Minerals Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2012) 346 ITR 467 (Karn.) d) ISRO Satellite Centre (ISAC), (2008) 307 ITR 59 (AAR) e) Intertek Testing Services India (P) Ltd., reported in Authority for Advance Rulings (2008) 307 ITR…

EDENRED PTE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 507/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. RajanVora &For Respondent: Mr. Nishant Samaiya &
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Edenred Pte Ltd., C/o SRBC The Deputy Director of Associates & LLP, 14th floor, Vs. Income Tax The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat (International Taxation)- Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai- 3(2), 400028. 1st floor, R. No. 132, Scindia House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. PAN No. AACCE8636P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Edenred Pte Ltd., C/o SRBC The Deputy Associates & LLP, 14th floor, Vs. Commissioner of Income T…

EDENRED PTE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1718/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. RajanVora &For Respondent: Mr. Nishant Samaiya &
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Edenred Pte Ltd., C/o SRBC The Deputy Director of Associates & LLP, 14th floor, Vs. Income Tax The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat (International Taxation)- Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai- 3(2), 400028. 1st floor, R. No. 132, Scindia House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. PAN No. AACCE8636P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Edenred Pte Ltd., C/o SRBC The Deputy Associates & LLP, 14th floor, Vs. Commissioner of Income T…

CLASSIC LINEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in iTA

ITA 2406/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Respondent: 16.09.2019
Section 100Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…clients to CLSA India Limited, the assessee cannot be said to have rendered any technical, managerial or consultancy services as envisaged in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) as held by the AAR in the case of Cushman and Wakefield (S) Pte Ltd., In r [2008] 305 ITR 208 (AAR-New Delhi). 7. Moreover, Section 90 of the Indian Income Tax Act provide that if a non- resident taxpayer is a tax resident of a foreign country with which India has a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), then such non-resident taxpayer can apply either the provisions of the Income Tax Act or the provisions of the applicable tax trea…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANT THORNTON INDIA LLP, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6489/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6489/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Grant Thornton India Llp, Tax, Circle-52(1), L-41, Connaught Circus, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfg9740K Assessee By : Sh. Sh. Vinod Bindal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Sh. Vinod Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 40Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 6489/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s Grant Thornton India LLP, Tax, Circle-52(1), L-41, Connaught Circus, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACFG9740K Assessee by : Sh. Sh. Vinod Bindal, CA Revenue by : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 25.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 25.07.2019 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the or…

HSBC BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 7386/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh Irani &For Respondent: Shri S. Anbuselvan &
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…ices’ as canvassed by the Assessing Officer. In support of its contention about the issue in hand, the Learned Representative relied on the following judgments: i) CLSA Ltd. v. ITO(IT) – 2(1) [2013] 31 taxmann.com 5 ii) Cushman & Wakefield (S) Pte Ltd, In Re 305 ITR 208 (AAR) iii) Real Resourcing Ltd In Re 322 ITR 558 (AAR) 12. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that this income is in the nature of ‘Fees for Technical Services’ as per the definition provided under the Act and the DTAA. 13. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANT THORNTON, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 4143/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(2)Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 9

…The recipient of service must be able to absorb and apply the technology on its own in its future activities. ………………………...” 3.7 The Ld. CIT(A) in support of his finding, has relied on following decisions: a) Cushman & Wakefiled (S) Pte., reported in (2008) 305 ITR 208; b) Sandvik Australia Pty. Ltd. Vs. DDIT (International Taxation), reported in (2013) 141 ITD 598 (Pune); c) CIT Vs. De Beers India Minerals Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2012) 346 ITR 467 (Karn.) d) ISRO Satellite Centre (ISAC), (2008) 307 ITR 59 (AAR) e) Intertek Testing Services India (P) Ltd., reported in Authority for Advance Rulings (2008) 307 IT…

CREDIT SUISSE AG,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed by us

ITA 7357/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Sooddcit (It) 2(1)(1) R.No.114, 1St Floor Scinidia House N.M.Road, Ballard Estate Mumbai – 400 036 ...... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Shishir DhamijaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sonde
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 5(2)(b)Section 9(1)(i)

…isions clearly support the inference of the DRP that the ‘referral fee’ in question cannot be construed to be in the nature of ‘fee for technical services’ and that the same is merely in the nature of commission income. (i) Cushman & Wakefield (S) Pte. Ltd., 305 ITR 208(AAR) (ii) CLSA Ltd., vs. ITO (International Taxation), 56 SOT 254(Mum) (iii) ADIT (IT) vs.Star Cruise India Travel Services (P) Ltd., 46 SOT 173(Mum) 6. The stand of the assessee is that considering the fact that the ‘referral fee’ is in the nature of commission income, the DRP made no mistake in treating it as not taxable in India in view of th…

DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CREDIT SUISSE AG, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed by us

ITA 1247/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Sooddcit (It) 2(1)(1) R.No.114, 1St Floor Scinidia House N.M.Road, Ballard Estate Mumbai – 400 036 ...... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Shishir DhamijaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sonde
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 5(2)(b)Section 9(1)(i)

…isions clearly support the inference of the DRP that the ‘referral fee’ in question cannot be construed to be in the nature of ‘fee for technical services’ and that the same is merely in the nature of commission income. (i) Cushman & Wakefield (S) Pte. Ltd., 305 ITR 208(AAR) (ii) CLSA Ltd., vs. ITO (International Taxation), 56 SOT 254(Mum) (iii) ADIT (IT) vs.Star Cruise India Travel Services (P) Ltd., 46 SOT 173(Mum) 6. The stand of the assessee is that considering the fact that the ‘referral fee’ is in the nature of commission income, the DRP made no mistake in treating it as not taxable in India in view of th…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. MIRA EXIM LTD.

ITA/1084/2017HC Delhi29 Nov 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 9(2)

…ITA 1084/2017 Page 1 $~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1084/2017, C.M. APPL.43425/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 ..... Appellant Through : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel, for Sh. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus MIRA EXIM LTD. ..... Respondent Through : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R % 29.11.2017 The Revenue’s grievance in this appeal under 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is that the Income Tax A…

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)

…AR) , 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 was no expertise or know-how which was made available to CWI by reason of rendering service of a managerial, technical or consultancy nature. Some sort of durability or permanency of result of rendering of services was envisaged. The referral fee paid by the Indian company was not "fee for technical services" under section…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2