DDIT (IT)-1, Hyderabad v. Dharti Dredging & Infrastructure Ltd.

146 TTJ 283Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#22599 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2023.

Judgments citing DDIT (IT)-1, Hyderabad v. Dharti Dredging & Infrastructure Ltd.

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

ITA 816/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/w Ms. Miti ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chandip Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

…nts for 'use' or 'right to use any industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment. Further, we find that a similar view had also been taken by the ITAT Hyderabad Bench 'A' in the case of DDIT (IT)-1, Hyderabad Vs. Dharti Dredging & Infrastructure Ltd. (2012) 146 TTJ 283 (Hyd). In the said case, it was observed by the Tribunal that as the assessee before them had only hired the dredger simpliciter from the foreign company viz. EMPL, and had neither used the same or any part thereof on its own nor was it given any right to use the same by the foreign company, the payment therein made could thus not be treated as r…

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

ITA 6588/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

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

For Respondent: Shri S.S. Iyengar, SR DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/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 Appellant by Shri Madhur Agarwal, AR : Respondent by : Shri S.S. Iyengar, SR DR Date of Hearing 24.06.2021 Date of Pronouncement 20.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVA…

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

ITA 7055/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh &

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

…re Pte. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (IT)-4(2)(1) 26 ITA No.7055/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 equipment. Further, we find that a similar view had also been taken by the ITAT Hyderabad Bench ‗A‘ in the case of DDIT (IT)-1, Hyderabad Vs. Dharti Dredging & Infrastructure Ltd. (2012) 146 TTJ 283 (Hyd). In the said case, it was observed by the Tribunal that as the assessee before them had only hired the dredger simpliciter from the foreign company viz. EMPL, and had neither used the same or any part thereof on its own nor was it given any right to use the same by the foreign company, the payment therein made could thus not be treated as r…