What is Cochin Refineries Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Payments made to a foreign company for technical services utilized in the business are subject to tax deduction under Section 195, and failure to do so can lead to disallowance of the expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia).

How many judgments cite Cochin Refineries Ltd. v. CIT?

24 judgments on BharatTax cite Cochin Refineries Ltd. v. CIT (222 ITR 354), spanning 2012 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Cochin Refineries Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 143(3) of Income-tax Act, Section 144C(13) of Income-tax Act, Section 147 of Income-tax Act, Section 148 of Income-tax Act, Section 153 of Income-tax Act.

Cochin Refineries Ltd. v. CIT (222 ITR 354)

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

ITA 1026/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

For Respondent: “i. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in the law, the

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 153Section 250Section 9

…2 ITA Nos 1023 to 1026 /Mum/2024 Jafferies LLC Date of hearing : 27/06/2024 Date of pronouncement : 28/06/2024 ORDER PER BENCH: Instant appeals of the revenue and Cross Objections by the assessee are preferred against the common order of theLearned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-57, Mumbai [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), for Asst Years2014-15 to 2018-19, date of order 29/12/2023. The impugned orders were emanated from the order of the Id. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, (International Taxation) Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai(in short, 'the A.…

DCIT It 3.1.1, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

ITA 1023/MUM/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024

For Respondent: “i. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in the law, the

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 153Section 250Section 9

…2 ITA Nos 1023 to 1026 /Mum/2024 Jafferies LLC Date of hearing : 27/06/2024 Date of pronouncement : 28/06/2024 ORDER PER BENCH: Instant appeals of the revenue and Cross Objections by the assessee are preferred against the common order of theLearned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-57, Mumbai [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), for Asst Years2014-15 to 2018-19, date of order 29/12/2023. The impugned orders were emanated from the order of the Id. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, (International Taxation) Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai(in short, 'the A.…

Jefferies Llc, Mumbai vs. DCIT(It)3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5674/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejefferies Llc V. Dcit (It)-3(1)(1) C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp Room No. 1605, 16Th Floor 14Th Floor, The Ruby Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aaccj8881D (Appellant) (Respondent) Jefferies International Limited V. Dcit (It)-3(1)(1) C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp Room No. 1605, 16Th Floor 14Th Floor, The Ruby Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aabcj7041C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(24)(iva)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 9

…sessing Officer in Para No. 9.4.1 of the assessment order. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble AP High Court in the case of Clouth Gummiwerke Aktiengesellscheaff (238 ITR 861) and decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Cochin Refineries v. CIT (222 ITR 354). 6. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe from the record that the principal activity of the assessee is to provide merchant banking and investment advisory services to investors, corporates and associated entities and stock broking services to domestic and foreign institutional investors. The Jefferies Grou…

Raymon Patel Gelatine Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Baroda

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2078/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)Section 40

…rrect. The payments have been made for obtaining certificates for medicines being manufactured by the appellant as herbal, inspection and supervision of plants of the appellant etc. Hon'ble Kerala High Court in its decision in the case of Cochin Refinery Ltd, 222 ITR 354 was concerned with similar issue. In that case the assessee had requested a foreign company situated in USA to evaluate whether coke produced from a blend of vacuum bottoms and clarified oil from Bombay High crude was suitable for making anode for aluminium industry. The test was carried out in USA. The court held that the payment made for such p…

Raymon Patel Gelatine Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Baroda

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1591/AHD/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)Section 40

…rrect. The payments have been made for obtaining certificates for medicines being manufactured by the appellant as herbal, inspection and supervision of plants of the appellant etc. Hon'ble Kerala High Court in its decision in the case of Cochin Refinery Ltd, 222 ITR 354 was concerned with similar issue. In that case the assessee had requested a foreign company situated in USA to evaluate whether coke produced from a blend of vacuum bottoms and clarified oil from Bombay High crude was suitable for making anode for aluminium industry. The test was carried out in USA. The court held that the payment made for such p…

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

…will include reimbursement of expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of computing gross receipts;” The issue in the present case has been resolved by the Hon’ble ITAT in the above mentioned decision. In case of Cochin Refineries vs. CIT [1996] 222 ITR 354 (Ker), same principle has been laid down. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that payments are merely in nature of imbursement and hence not taxable is not correct. 8. In view of discussion supra, the Ld.CIT(A) held that entire payments made by the appellant to FAA are in nature of FTS and hence chargeable to tax in India under DTAA. Acc…

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

…will include reimbursement of expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of computing gross receipts;” The issue in the present case has been resolved by the Hon’ble ITAT in the above mentioned decision. In case of Cochin Refineries vs. CIT [1996] 222 ITR 354 (Ker), same principle has been laid down. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that payments are merely in nature of imbursement and hence not taxable is not correct. 8. In view of discussion supra, the Ld.CIT(A) held that entire payments made by the appellant to FAA are in nature of FTS and hence chargeable to tax in India under DTAA. Acc…

ACIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…consideration for any construction, assembly, mining or like project undertaken by the recipient or consideration which would be income of the recipient chargeable under the salaries. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Cochin Refineries Ltd. vs CIT 222 ITR 354 has held that “Fees paid by Indian Company to foreign company to evaluate quality of certain products and as ascertain suitability of such products for specific industry, were considered as reimbursement made by Indian company were part and parcel in the process of advice of technical nature, and therefore, squarely fell in the definition of “fee…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…consideration for any construction, assembly, mining or like project undertaken by the recipient or consideration which would be income of the recipient chargeable under the salaries. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Cochin Refineries Ltd. vs CIT 222 ITR 354 has held that “Fees paid by Indian Company to foreign company to evaluate quality of certain products and as ascertain suitability of such products for specific industry, were considered as reimbursement made by Indian company were part and parcel in the process of advice of technical nature, and therefore, squarely fell in the definition of “fee…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…consideration for any construction, assembly, mining or like project undertaken by the recipient or consideration which would be income of the recipient chargeable under the salaries. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Cochin Refineries Ltd. vs CIT 222 ITR 354 has held that “Fees paid by Indian Company to foreign company to evaluate quality of certain products and as ascertain suitability of such products for specific industry, were considered as reimbursement made by Indian company were part and parcel in the process of advice of technical nature, and therefore, squarely fell in the definition of “fee…

M/S.Us Technology Resources P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The DCIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 475/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR

Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM IT(TP)A No.475/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 IT(TP)A No.134/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 & SA No.08/Coch/2018 (Arising out of ITA No.475/Coch/2016) SA No.25/Coch/2016 (Arising out of ITA No.134/Coch/2016) M/s.US Technology The Dy.Commissioner of Resources Private Limited Vs. Income-tax, Circle – 2(1) 721/722, NILA, Trivandrum. Techno Park Campus Trivandrum-695 581. PAN : AAACU6085C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Raghunathan S., Advocate Respondent by : Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR…

M/S.Us Technology Resources P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 134/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR

Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM IT(TP)A No.475/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 IT(TP)A No.134/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 & SA No.08/Coch/2018 (Arising out of ITA No.475/Coch/2016) SA No.25/Coch/2016 (Arising out of ITA No.134/Coch/2016) M/s.US Technology The Dy.Commissioner of Resources Private Limited Vs. Income-tax, Circle – 2(1) 721/722, NILA, Trivandrum. Techno Park Campus Trivandrum-695 581. PAN : AAACU6085C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Raghunathan S., Advocate Respondent by : Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR…

The Timken Company, Kolkata vs. The DDIT, International Taxation - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result appeals for AY 2004-05 to 2007-08 are allowed

ITA 1268/KOL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh Am]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.B.Som, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

…void tax deduction at source under the garb of reimbursements. According to him therefore the claim of the Assessee should not be accepted. In this regard he made reference to the following decisions CU Inspections 42 ITD 761 (ITAT), Cochin Refineries Vs. CIT 222 ITR 354 (Kerala). We are of the view that this argument of the learned DR cannot be accepted because, we are not deciding the case of TIL in the context of obligation to deduct tax at source. For the very same reason we are of the view that the reliance placed by the learned DR on ITAT Kolkata Bench decision in the case of Ershisanye Construction ITA No.…

The Timken Company, Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T (International Taxation) - II, Kolkata

In the result appeals for AY 2004-05 to 2007-08 are allowed

ITA 2139/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh Am]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.B.Som, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

…void tax deduction at source under the garb of reimbursements. According to him therefore the claim of the Assessee should not be accepted. In this regard he made reference to the following decisions CU Inspections 42 ITD 761 (ITAT), Cochin Refineries Vs. CIT 222 ITR 354 (Kerala). We are of the view that this argument of the learned DR cannot be accepted because, we are not deciding the case of TIL in the context of obligation to deduct tax at source. For the very same reason we are of the view that the reliance placed by the learned DR on ITAT Kolkata Bench decision in the case of Ershisanye Construction ITA No.…

ADIT(It)-3(1), Kolkata vs. The Timken Company, Kolkata

In the result appeals for AY 2004-05 to 2007-08 are allowed

ITA 387/KOL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh Am]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.B.Som, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

…void tax deduction at source under the garb of reimbursements. According to him therefore the claim of the Assessee should not be accepted. In this regard he made reference to the following decisions CU Inspections 42 ITD 761 (ITAT), Cochin Refineries Vs. CIT 222 ITR 354 (Kerala). We are of the view that this argument of the learned DR cannot be accepted because, we are not deciding the case of TIL in the context of obligation to deduct tax at source. For the very same reason we are of the view that the reliance placed by the learned DR on ITAT Kolkata Bench decision in the case of Ershisanye Construction ITA No.…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ford India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is thus allowed

ITA 840/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ses, has no 'income' element embedded in it, and therefore does not attract tax deduction at source u/s. 195(1). 3.3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Cochin Refineries Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 222 ITR 354 (Ker) (1996), where the Hon'ble court has held that TDS is applicable even in reimbursement of expenses. I.T.A. Nos. 673, 840, 748 and 749 /Chny/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 8 of 55 3.4 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of HNS India VSAT Inc. Vs. DDIT, wherein it is held th…

Ford India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is thus allowed

ITA 749/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ses, has no 'income' element embedded in it, and therefore does not attract tax deduction at source u/s. 195(1). 3.3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Cochin Refineries Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 222 ITR 354 (Ker) (1996), where the Hon'ble court has held that TDS is applicable even in reimbursement of expenses. I.T.A. Nos. 673, 840, 748 and 749 /Chny/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 8 of 55 3.4 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of HNS India VSAT Inc. Vs. DDIT, wherein it is held th…

Ford India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is thus allowed

ITA 748/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ses, has no 'income' element embedded in it, and therefore does not attract tax deduction at source u/s. 195(1). 3.3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Cochin Refineries Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 222 ITR 354 (Ker) (1996), where the Hon'ble court has held that TDS is applicable even in reimbursement of expenses. I.T.A. Nos. 673, 840, 748 and 749 /Chny/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 8 of 55 3.4 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of HNS India VSAT Inc. Vs. DDIT, wherein it is held th…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ford India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is thus allowed

ITA 673/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ses, has no 'income' element embedded in it, and therefore does not attract tax deduction at source u/s. 195(1). 3.3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Cochin Refineries Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 222 ITR 354 (Ker) (1996), where the Hon'ble court has held that TDS is applicable even in reimbursement of expenses. I.T.A. Nos. 673, 840, 748 and 749 /Chny/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 8 of 55 3.4 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of HNS India VSAT Inc. Vs. DDIT, wherein it is held th…

Joint DIT(It)-2, Mumbai vs. Saipem S.A., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1726/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & C.N.Prasad (Jm)

Section 195Section 9

…re was no difference between the fees for engineering services and the fees relatable to living allowances or traveling charges of the employees who would rendered the services. 3 M/s. Saipem S.A. 4.7 It has been held in the case of Cochin Refineries Ltd. ( 222 ITR 354) by the Kerala High Court that the services rendered by the foreign company which were in the nature of technical services and the nature of reimbursement of payments made to the personnel, no different situation would be available because these payments would be part and parcel in the process of advise of a technical character and would fall for…

Cochin Refineries Ltd. v. CIT

What is Cochin Refineries Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Cochin Refineries Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

DCIT It 3.1.1, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

Jefferies Llc, Mumbai vs. DCIT(It)3(1)(1), Mumbai

Raymon Patel Gelatine Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Baroda

Raymon Patel Gelatine Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Baroda

Airport Authority of India, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Airport Authority of India, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ACIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

M/S.Us Technology Resources P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The DCIT, Trivandrum

M/S.Us Technology Resources P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

The Timken Company, Kolkata vs. The DDIT, International Taxation - 3(1), Kolkata

The Timken Company, Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T (International Taxation) - II, Kolkata

ADIT(It)-3(1), Kolkata vs. The Timken Company, Kolkata

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ford India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram

Ford India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Chennai

Ford India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Chennai

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ford India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram

Joint DIT(It)-2, Mumbai vs. Saipem S.A., Mumbai