DDIT v. Preroy A.G

39 SOT 187Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#5273 most cited

What is DDIT v. Preroy A.G authority for?

The interpretation of the phrase "make available" in tax treaties hinges on whether services are accessible to the recipient without dependence on the provider for ongoing support.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

DDIT v Preroy A.G · make available clause · fees for included services · tax treaty · interpretation of treaty

Issues it is cited on

make available clausecopyrighted articlefees for included servicesretrospective amendmentroyalty incomesection 9(1)(vi)section 9(1)(vii)computer softwareenduring benefitfees for technical servicestax treatysection 9(1)

Judgments citing DDIT v. Preroy A.G

Outotec Oyj, Kolkata vs. DDIT(It)-2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 558/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 144C(5)

…eaty clarifies meaning of the terms (or language) used . Reliance is placed on the following decisions in this regard:- (a) National Organic Chemicals Industries Ltd vs DCIT reported in (2006) 5 SOT 317 (Mumbai ITAT) (b) DDIT vs Preroy A.G. reported in (2010) 39 SOT 187 (Mum ITAT) (c) Intertek Testing Services India (P) ltd In re reported in (2008) 307 ITR 418 (AAR – New Delhi) dated 7.11.2008 (d) ITO vs Nokia India (P) Ltd reported in (2015) 59 taxmann.com 120 (Delhi Trib) dated 8.7.2015 (e) Steria (India) ltd vs CIT reported in (2016) 386 ITR 390 (Del HC) 8.3. We find that the co-ordinate bench decision of thi…

Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 7589/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla & Ita No. : 7589/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Van Oord Dredging & Marine Vs Addl. Director Of Income-Tax Contractors Bv, (International Taxation)-Range-2, 2Nd Floor, Central Plaza, First Floor, Room No.108, Cst Road, Kalina, Scindhia House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400 098 Mumbai -400 038 "थयी लेखा सं.:Pan : Aaach 3500 M अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Applicant By : "ी Shri Porus Kaka Respondent By : "ी Jshri N K Chand सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-10-2016 आदेश Order अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य: Per Amit Shukla, J.M.: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.10.2012, Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In Pursuance Of Direction Given By The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Under Section 144C(5) Vide Order Dated 29.09.2012, For The Assessment Year 2009-10. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Aw, The Learned Ao, Based On Directions Of Drp Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.24,80,29,144 (I.E. Management Service Fees Of Rs.22,57,89,998 & Reimbursement Of 2 Van Oord Dredging & Marine Contractors Bv

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…ckoned as “royalty”. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions:- Sr. Case Law Citation No 1 GECF Asia Limited v DDIT 65 SOT 257 2 Diamond Services International (P) Ltd [2008] Vs. Union of India 304 ITR 201 3 DDIT v Preroy AG [2010] 39 SOT 187 (Mumbai ITAT) 4 Spice Telecom v ITO [2008] 113 TTJ 502 (Bangalore ITAT) 10. Another limb of his argument on this aspect was that, the ‘service fees’ which has been received by the assessee for rendering of aforesaid services are without any markup and constitutes pure allocation of cost, which cannot be held to be taxable under the Act. For rende…