DCIT v. Alcatel

128 ITR 27High Court1981#6050 most cited
19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 195Section 37

Issues it is cited on

section 40(1)section 102section 114within four yearsfirst proviso to section 147fresh tangible materialfull and true disclosurematerial facts necessary for assessmentprohibited by lawkelvinatormere change of opinionlive link

Judgments citing DCIT v. Alcatel

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…agent of NR and liabilities of appellant stands discharged as per IRDA guidelines. Thus, principal & agent relationship exists between reinsurance agent and NRs. (e) AO also cited case laws in favour of the Department: (i) R.D. Aggarwal & Company 56 ITR 20, 128 ITR 27 (Mad)-w.r.t. business connection (ii) Kanchan ganga Sea Foods Ltd AIT 2010 264 SC, Van Oordac Jet India P Ltd 112 ITD 79, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh 239 ITR 587, Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Ltd 109 ITD 226, Frontier Offshore Exploration India Ltd ITA No. 2037/Mads/06, West Asia Maritime Ltd (ITAT Chennai), AAR in Rajiv Malhotra…

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 2827/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…f NR \nand liabilities of appellant stands discharged as per \nIRDA guidelines. Thus, principal & agent relationship \nexists between reinsurance agent and NRs. \n(e) AO also cited case laws in favour of the Department \n(i) R.D. Aggarwal & Company 56 ITR 20, 128 ITR 27 \n(Mad)-w.r.t. business connection \n(ii) Kanchan ganga Sea Foods Ltd AIT 2010 264 SC, \nVan Oordac Jet India P Ltd ITD 79, Transmission \nCorporation of Andhra Pradesh 239 ITR 587, Poompuhar \nShipping Corporation Ltd 109 ITD 226, Frontier Offshore \nExploration India Ltd ITA No. 2037/Mads/06, West Asia \nMaritime Ltd (ITAT Chennai), AAR in Rajiv…

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2823/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…agent of NR and liabilities of appellant stands discharged as per IRDA guidelines. Thus, principal & agent relationship exists between reinsurance agent and NRs. (e) AO also cited case laws in favour of the Department: (i) R.D. Aggarwal & Company 56 ITR 20, 128 ITR 27 (Mad)-w.r.t. business connection (ii) Kanchan ganga Sea Foods Ltd AIT 2010 264 SC, Van Oordac Jet India P Ltd 112 ITD 79, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh 239 ITR 587, Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Ltd 109 ITD 226, Frontier Offshore Exploration India Ltd ITA No. 2037/Mads/06, West Asia Maritime Ltd (ITAT Chennai), AAR in Rajiv Malhotra…

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2622/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…agent of NR and liabilities of appellant stands discharged as per IRDA guidelines. Thus, principal & agent relationship exists between reinsurance agent and NRs. (e) AO also cited case laws in favour of the Department: (i) R.D. Aggarwal & Company 56 ITR 20, 128 ITR 27 (Mad)-w.r.t. business connection (ii) Kanchan ganga Sea Foods Ltd AIT 2010 264 SC, Van Oordac Jet India P Ltd 112 ITD 79, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh 239 ITR 587, Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Ltd 109 ITD 226, Frontier Offshore Exploration India Ltd ITA No. 2037/Mads/06, West Asia Maritime Ltd (ITAT Chennai), AAR in Rajiv Malhotra…

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2616/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…agent of NR and liabilities of appellant stands discharged as per IRDA guidelines. Thus, principal & agent relationship exists between reinsurance agent and NRs. (e) AO also cited case laws in favour of the Department: (i) R.D. Aggarwal & Company 56 ITR 20, 128 ITR 27 (Mad)-w.r.t. business connection (ii) Kanchan ganga Sea Foods Ltd AIT 2010 264 SC, Van Oordac Jet India P Ltd 112 ITD 79, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh 239 ITR 587, Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Ltd 109 ITD 226, Frontier Offshore Exploration India Ltd ITA No. 2037/Mads/06, West Asia Maritime Ltd (ITAT Chennai), AAR in Rajiv Malhotra…

ACIT, CIRCLE-10(2), NEW DELHI vs. GRAZIANO TRANSMISSION INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 397/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Malhotra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…was duly considered by the Ld. AO. According to him SPA has a business connection in India in support of which he relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. R.D. Aggarwal and Co. (1965) 56 ITR 20 and CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries (1981) 128 ITR 27 (Mad) and also on Circular 23 of 1969 regarding taxability of income accruing or arising through, or from, business connection in India to non resident under section 9 of the Act. 6.3 In rebuttal, Ld. AR reiterated that the facts in the assessment year 2014-15 under consideration are exactly the same as those assessment years which have already b…

M/S SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

ITA 6385/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 234B

…he following decisions: i. Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited 288 ITR 408 (SC) ii. Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited 210 CTR 178 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. Alcatel 47 ITD 275 v. CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries 128 ITR 27 vi. Carborandum Co vs. CIT 108 ITR 335 As regards the risk and responsibility, the Ld. AR submitted that it is evident name of SSNNL as the consigner. This read with the provisions of Article 24.1 (Transfer of Ownership), clearly exhibits the intention of the contracting parties. Merely by stating that assessee was responsible for risk and respons…

M/S SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

ITA 6384/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 234B

…he following decisions: i. Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited 288 ITR 408 (SC) ii. Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited 210 CTR 178 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. Alcatel 47 ITD 275 v. CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries 128 ITR 27 vi. Carborandum Co vs. CIT 108 ITR 335 As regards the risk and responsibility, the Ld. AR submitted that it is evident name of SSNNL as the consigner. This read with the provisions of Article 24.1 (Transfer of Ownership), clearly exhibits the intention of the contracting parties. Merely by stating that assessee was responsible for risk and respons…

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1114/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 234B

…he following decisions: i. Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited 288 ITR 408 (SC) ii. Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited 210 CTR 178 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. Alcatel 47 ITD 275 v. CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries 128 ITR 27 vi. Carborandum Co vs. CIT 108 ITR 335 As regards the risk and responsibility, the Ld. AR submitted that it is evident name of SSNNL as the consigner. This read with the provisions of Article 24.1 (Transfer of Ownership), clearly exhibits the intention of the contracting parties. Merely by stating that assessee was responsible for risk and respons…

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUMITOMO CORPORATION, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3714/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 234B

…he following decisions: i. Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited 288 ITR 408 (SC) ii. Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited 210 CTR 178 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. Alcatel 47 ITD 275 v. CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries 128 ITR 27 vi. Carborandum Co vs. CIT 108 ITR 335 As regards the risk and responsibility, the Ld. AR submitted that it is evident name of SSNNL as the consigner. This read with the provisions of Article 24.1 (Transfer of Ownership), clearly exhibits the intention of the contracting parties. Merely by stating that assessee was responsible for risk and respons…

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUMITOMO CORPORATION, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3713/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 234B

…he following decisions: i. Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited 288 ITR 408 (SC) ii. Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited 210 CTR 178 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. Alcatel 47 ITD 275 v. CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries 128 ITR 27 vi. Carborandum Co vs. CIT 108 ITR 335 As regards the risk and responsibility, the Ld. AR submitted that it is evident name of SSNNL as the consigner. This read with the provisions of Article 24.1 (Transfer of Ownership), clearly exhibits the intention of the contracting parties. Merely by stating that assessee was responsible for risk and respons…

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUMITOMO CORPORATION, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3696/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 234B

…he following decisions: i. Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited 288 ITR 408 (SC) ii. Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited 210 CTR 178 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. Alcatel 47 ITD 275 v. CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries 128 ITR 27 vi. Carborandum Co vs. CIT 108 ITR 335 As regards the risk and responsibility, the Ld. AR submitted that it is evident name of SSNNL as the consigner. This read with the provisions of Article 24.1 (Transfer of Ownership), clearly exhibits the intention of the contracting parties. Merely by stating that assessee was responsible for risk and respons…

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUMITOMO CORPORATION, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3695/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 234B

…he following decisions: i. Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited 288 ITR 408 (SC) ii. Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited 210 CTR 178 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. Alcatel 47 ITD 275 v. CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries 128 ITR 27 vi. Carborandum Co vs. CIT 108 ITR 335 As regards the risk and responsibility, the Ld. AR submitted that it is evident name of SSNNL as the consigner. This read with the provisions of Article 24.1 (Transfer of Ownership), clearly exhibits the intention of the contracting parties. Merely by stating that assessee was responsible for risk and respons…

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3677/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 234B

…he following decisions: i. Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited 288 ITR 408 (SC) ii. Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited 210 CTR 178 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. Alcatel 47 ITD 275 v. CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries 128 ITR 27 vi. Carborandum Co vs. CIT 108 ITR 335 As regards the risk and responsibility, the Ld. AR submitted that it is evident name of SSNNL as the consigner. This read with the provisions of Article 24.1 (Transfer of Ownership), clearly exhibits the intention of the contracting parties. Merely by stating that assessee was responsible for risk and respons…

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3676/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 234B

…he following decisions: i. Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited 288 ITR 408 (SC) ii. Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited 210 CTR 178 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. Alcatel 47 ITD 275 v. CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries 128 ITR 27 vi. Carborandum Co vs. CIT 108 ITR 335 As regards the risk and responsibility, the Ld. AR submitted that it is evident name of SSNNL as the consigner. This read with the provisions of Article 24.1 (Transfer of Ownership), clearly exhibits the intention of the contracting parties. Merely by stating that assessee was responsible for risk and respons…

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3675/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 234B

…he following decisions: i. Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited 288 ITR 408 (SC) ii. Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited 210 CTR 178 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC) iv. DCIT vs. Alcatel 47 ITD 275 v. CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries 128 ITR 27 vi. Carborandum Co vs. CIT 108 ITR 335 As regards the risk and responsibility, the Ld. AR submitted that it is evident name of SSNNL as the consigner. This read with the provisions of Article 24.1 (Transfer of Ownership), clearly exhibits the intention of the contracting parties. Merely by stating that assessee was responsible for risk and respons…

ULO SYSTEMS LLC,GURGAON vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 285/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati (CIT DR)
Section 115ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44BSection 44D

…he sake has been concluded outside India. In this regard, reliance has been placed on, inter-alia, the following rulings. -Mahabir Commercial Co. Ltd. v CIT (86 ITR 417)(SC); -CIT v Mewar Textile Mills Ltd. (91 ITR 542) (SC); -CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries (128 ITR 27) (Mad); -CIT v Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. (135 ITR 762)(Bom); and -ACIT v. Skoda Exports (172 ITR 358)(AP)” As per the TDS certificates enclosed with the return of income it has been observed that the assessee has earned the revenues and tax has been deducted at source. The revenues earned are as follows:- S. No. Name Amount 1. Hyundai Heavy Ind…

ULO SYSTEMS LLC.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5278/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati (CIT DR)
Section 115ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44BSection 44D

…he sake has been concluded outside India. In this regard, reliance has been placed on, inter-alia, the following rulings. -Mahabir Commercial Co. Ltd. v CIT (86 ITR 417)(SC); -CIT v Mewar Textile Mills Ltd. (91 ITR 542) (SC); -CIT vs. Fried Krupp Industries (128 ITR 27) (Mad); -CIT v Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. (135 ITR 762)(Bom); and -ACIT v. Skoda Exports (172 ITR 358)(AP)” As per the TDS certificates enclosed with the return of income it has been observed that the assessee has earned the revenues and tax has been deducted at source. The revenues earned are as follows:- S. No. Name Amount 1. Hyundai Heavy Ind…

ISHIKAWAJMA-HARIMA HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed in part and to

C.A. No.-000009-000009 - 2007Supreme Court04 Jan 2007
For Respondent: Director of Income Tax, Mumbai
Section 241

…bt, the applicability of the tax laws would depend upon the nature of the contract, but the same should not be construed keeping in view the taxing provisions. In Commissioner of Income-Tax, Tamil Nadu-V v. Fried Krupp Industries [(1981) 128 ITR 27], a Division Bench of the Madras High Court opined : "\005Nowadays we have what are called turnkey projects, and in such projects until the machinery is actually run and proves its performance, the responsibility of the foreigner would continue. But in the present case the contract cannot be equated to a turnkey contract. The operations in I…