DCIT, International Taxation, Baroda v. Bombardier Transportation India Pvt. ltd.

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) (It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mckinsey & Company Singapore Pte Limited, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

…Bangalore ITAT), ACIT v Viceroy Hotels Ltd (60 DTR 1) (Hyderabad ITAT), Bovis Lend Lease (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO [36 SOT 166) (Bangalore ITAT), Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax, International Taxation, Baroda v. Bombardier, Transportation India (P.) Ltd. (162 ITD 586) (Ahmadabad ITAT), NAQ Quality Systems…

Smit Singapore Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Int Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…rol/nor the possession over the vessel in question." Apart from that, we find that a similar view had also been arrived at by the ITAT Ahmedabad bench 'I' in the case of DCIT, International Taxation, Baroda Vs. Bombardier Transportation India Pvt. Itd. (2017) 162 ITD 586 (Ahd). In the said case, it was observed by the Tribunal that the rendition of I.T support services to the assessee by a Canadian company, even if certain equipment were to be used, that by itself would not vest any right in the assessee to use the equipment, and thus, payments made by the assessee could not be viewed as payments for 'use' or 'ri…

Smit Singapoare Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) Cir 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Smit Singapore Vs. Dcit (It) – 4(2)(1) 17Th Floor, Room No. Pte Ltd., Srbc & Associates, Llp 1708, Air India 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Building , Nariman 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Point, Mumbai Dadar (W) – 400028. È"ȡ"Ȣ""Ȯ"ȡ" Ȳ"""Ȣ] ^ ] "" Ȳ""Pan/Gir No. : Aaocs1031L Appellant/Respondent .. Respondent/Appellant

…ol/nor the possession over the vessel in question.” Apart from that, we find that a similar view had also been arrived at DCIT, by the ITAT Ahmedabad bench ‘I’ in the case of International Taxation, Baroda Vs. Bombardier Transportation India Pvt. ltd. (2017) 162 ITD 586 (Ahd). In the said case, it was observed by the Tribunal that the rendition of I.T support services to the assessee by a Canadian company, even if certain equipment were to be used, that by itself would not vest any right in the assessee to use the equipment, and thus, payments made by the assessee could not be viewed as payments for ‘use’ or ‘ri…

Smit Singapoare Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) Cir 4(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodsmit Singapore Pte Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Srbc & Associates, Of Income-Tax (I.T.)-4(2)(1), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Vs. 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai- 400028 Pan – Aaocs1031L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R Respondent By: Shri Sanjay Singh & Shri T.S. Khaisa, Cit, D.Rs Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.11.2020

…ol/nor the possession over the vessel in question.‖ Apart from that, we find that a similar view had also been arrived at by the ITAT Ahmedabad bench ‗I‘ in the case of DCIT, International Taxation, Baroda Vs. Bombardier Transportation India Pvt. ltd. (2017) 162 ITD 586 (Ahd). In the said case, it was observed by the Tribunal that the rendition of I.T support services to the assessee by a Canadian company, even if certain equipment were to be used, that by itself would not vest any right in the assessee to use the equipment, and thus, payments made by the assessee could not be viewed as payments for ‗use‘ or ‗ri…