Director of IT M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. (International Tatution) v. Krupp Udhe GmbH

354 ITR 173High Court2013#4508 most cited

What is Director of IT M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. (International Tatution) v. Krupp Udhe GmbH authority for?

Payments made towards reimbursement of expenses to a C&F agent, where such payments have no income element embedded, do not attract liability to deduct tax at source.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Director of IT M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. v. Krupp Udhe GmbH · section 194c · reimbursement of expenses · C&F agent · no income element · TDS liability · tax deduction at source

Issues it is cited on

section 248section 194a(1)section 133a(2a)section 194isection 195(1)going concernsection 195(2)section 194jinterest on securitiessection 197section 201(1a)section 194c

Judgments citing Director of IT M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. (International Tatution) v. Krupp Udhe GmbH

M/S Barmer Ligmite Mining Company Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 159/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

…s no income element embedded in it. The assesses contention deserves to be upheld in the facts and circumstances of the present case Director of IT M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. (International Tatution) vs Krupp Udhe GmbH (2010) 38 DTR (B) 251 (2013) 354 ITR 173 (Bom) followed Transmission Corporation of AP. Lad &Ors. 13. CIT (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 489: (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC) relied on (Paras 17 & 18) The assessees contention that there was no liability to deduct tax at source spon payments made towards reimbursement of amounts to the C&F ages will have to be accepted The Tribunal, in its impugned order in…

M/S Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd., Office No.2 & 3, 7Th Floor, Man Upasana Plaza, C-44, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 158/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

…s no income element embedded in it. The assesses contention deserves to be upheld in the facts and circumstances of the present case Director of IT M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. (International Tatution) vs Krupp Udhe GmbH (2010) 38 DTR (B) 251 (2013) 354 ITR 173 (Bom) followed Transmission Corporation of AP. Lad &Ors. 13. CIT (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 489: (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC) relied on (Paras 17 & 18) The assessees contention that there was no liability to deduct tax at source spon payments made towards reimbursement of amounts to the C&F ages will have to be accepted The Tribunal, in its impugned order in…

M/S Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd., Office No.2 & 3, 7Th Floor, Man Upasana Plaza, C-44, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 157/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

…s no income element embedded in it. The assesses contention deserves to be upheld in the facts and circumstances of the present case Director of IT M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. (International Tatution) vs Krupp Udhe GmbH (2010) 38 DTR (B) 251 (2013) 354 ITR 173 (Bom) followed Transmission Corporation of AP. Lad &Ors. 13. CIT (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 489: (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC) relied on (Paras 17 & 18) The assessees contention that there was no liability to deduct tax at source spon payments made towards reimbursement of amounts to the C&F ages will have to be accepted The Tribunal, in its impugned order in…

M/S Barmer Ligmite Mining Company Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 156/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

…s no income element embedded in it. The assesses contention deserves to be upheld in the facts and circumstances of the present case Director of IT M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. (International Tatution) vs Krupp Udhe GmbH (2010) 38 DTR (B) 251 (2013) 354 ITR 173 (Bom) followed Transmission Corporation of AP. Lad &Ors. 13. CIT (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 489: (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC) relied on (Paras 17 & 18) The assessees contention that there was no liability to deduct tax at source spon payments made towards reimbursement of amounts to the C&F ages will have to be accepted The Tribunal, in its impugned order in…

M/S Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd., Office No.2 & 3, 7Th Floor, Man Upasana Plaza, C-44, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 155/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

…s no income element embedded in it. The assesses contention deserves to be upheld in the facts and circumstances of the present case Director of IT M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. (International Tatution) vs Krupp Udhe GmbH (2010) 38 DTR (B) 251 (2013) 354 ITR 173 (Bom) followed Transmission Corporation of AP. Lad &Ors. 13. CIT (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 489: (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC) relied on (Paras 17 & 18) The assessees contention that there was no liability to deduct tax at source spon payments made towards reimbursement of amounts to the C&F ages will have to be accepted The Tribunal, in its impugned order in…

M/S Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd., Office No.2 & 3, 7Th Floor, Man Upasana Plaza, C-44, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 154/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

…s no income element embedded in it. The assesses contention deserves to be upheld in the facts and circumstances of the present case Director of IT M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. (International Tatution) vs Krupp Udhe GmbH (2010) 38 DTR (B) 251 (2013) 354 ITR 173 (Bom) followed Transmission Corporation of AP. Lad &Ors. 13. CIT (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 489: (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC) relied on (Paras 17 & 18) The assessees contention that there was no liability to deduct tax at source spon payments made towards reimbursement of amounts to the C&F ages will have to be accepted The Tribunal, in its impugned order in…

M/S Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd., Office No.2 & 3, 7Th Floor, Man Upasana Plaza, C-44, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 153/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

…s no income element embedded in it. The assesses contention deserves to be upheld in the facts and circumstances of the present case Director of IT M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. (International Tatution) vs Krupp Udhe GmbH (2010) 38 DTR (B) 251 (2013) 354 ITR 173 (Bom) followed Transmission Corporation of AP. Lad &Ors. 13. CIT (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 489: (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC) relied on (Paras 17 & 18) The assessees contention that there was no liability to deduct tax at source spon payments made towards reimbursement of amounts to the C&F ages will have to be accepted The Tribunal, in its impugned order in…

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

…on the following judgments wherein it has been held that reimbursement of cost is not taxable as fees for technical services since there is no element of income in the same: a. DIT vs. AP Moller Maersk (392 ITR 116) (SC) (Para 11) b. DIT vs. Krupp Udhe GMBH (354 ITR 173) (Bom.) (Para 6 and 7) c. CIT vs. Goldman Sachs India Finance Pvt. Ltd. (Bom.) (Para 3) d. Siemens Akstiongesellschaft (310 ITR 320) (Bom.) (Para 33) Ground No. 6 to 9-reimbursement of costs of Rs. 2,30,99,178 incurred on behalf of JIPL 9. At the outset the Appellant submits that the CIT(A) has made the following factually incorrect observations…

Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT (International Taxation) 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1691/CHNY/2017[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

…thora of judicial precedence and relevant case law cited in the form of paper book by the assessee are as under: 1. CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 143 ITR 493 (Calcutta) 2. DECTA vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 190 (AAR-N.Delhi) 3. DIT vs. Krupp UdheGMBH [2013] 354 ITR 173 (Bom) 4. AT & S India Pvt. Ltd. ITA 1160 and 2305 of 2013-ITAT Kol 5. DCIT vs. KPMG [2017] 81 taxmann.com 118 (Mumbai) 6. DCIT vs. Ernst & Young P Ltd. 32 ITR(T) 639 (Kolkata) 7. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany 8. Emersons Process Management vs. Ad. CIT 9. DIT vs.AP Moller Maersk A/s 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR…

Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT (International Taxation) 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1690/CHNY/2017[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

…thora of judicial precedence and relevant case law cited in the form of paper book by the assessee are as under: 1. CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 143 ITR 493 (Calcutta) 2. DECTA vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 190 (AAR-N.Delhi) 3. DIT vs. Krupp UdheGMBH [2013] 354 ITR 173 (Bom) 4. AT & S India Pvt. Ltd. ITA 1160 and 2305 of 2013-ITAT Kol 5. DCIT vs. KPMG [2017] 81 taxmann.com 118 (Mumbai) 6. DCIT vs. Ernst & Young P Ltd. 32 ITR(T) 639 (Kolkata) 7. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany 8. Emersons Process Management vs. Ad. CIT 9. DIT vs.AP Moller Maersk A/s 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR…

Basf Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3122/CHNY/2016[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

…thora of judicial precedence and relevant case law cited in the form of paper book by the assessee are as under: 1. CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 143 ITR 493 (Calcutta) 2. DECTA vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 190 (AAR-N.Delhi) 3. DIT vs. Krupp UdheGMBH [2013] 354 ITR 173 (Bom) 4. AT & S India Pvt. Ltd. ITA 1160 and 2305 of 2013-ITAT Kol 5. DCIT vs. KPMG [2017] 81 taxmann.com 118 (Mumbai) 6. DCIT vs. Ernst & Young P Ltd. 32 ITR(T) 639 (Kolkata) 7. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany 8. Emersons Process Management vs. Ad. CIT 9. DIT vs.AP Moller Maersk A/s 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR…

Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1187/CHNY/2016[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

…thora of judicial precedence and relevant case law cited in the form of paper book by the assessee are as under: 1. CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 143 ITR 493 (Calcutta) 2. DECTA vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 190 (AAR-N.Delhi) 3. DIT vs. Krupp UdheGMBH [2013] 354 ITR 173 (Bom) 4. AT & S India Pvt. Ltd. ITA 1160 and 2305 of 2013-ITAT Kol 5. DCIT vs. KPMG [2017] 81 taxmann.com 118 (Mumbai) 6. DCIT vs. Ernst & Young P Ltd. 32 ITR(T) 639 (Kolkata) 7. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany 8. Emersons Process Management vs. Ad. CIT 9. DIT vs.AP Moller Maersk A/s 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR…

Dy CIT 9 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sabmiller India Ltd (Now Known As Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

ITA 7110/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 200Section 32Section 32(1)Section 40

…ding, submitted that the issue is fully covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Director of Income Tax (IT) v/s A.P. Moller Maersk AS, [2017] 392 ITR 186 (SC) and the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Krupp Udhe GmbH, [2013] 354 ITR 173 (Bom.). 23. The learned Departmental Representative has objected to the order of the learned CIT(A). 14 Sabmiller India Ltd. (Now known as Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd.) 24. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record in the light of the decisions relied upon. A…

Ugc Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2155/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…ional High Court in CIT vs. Industrial Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi). These judgments were referred to, but the CIT(A) skirted to deal with them. More recently Hon'ble Bombay High Court in DI(international Taxation) i/s. Krupp Udhe GMBH 354 ITR 173 (Bombay) following Delhi High Court judgment in Industrial Engineering projects (P) Ltd (supra), have held that reimbursement of expenses would not be liable to be included in income. To conclude a reimbursement can never be a trading receipt. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) is equally wrong in holding that the cost of land is expenditure in…

Usg Buildwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1351/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…ional High Court in CIT vs. Industrial Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi). These judgments were referred to, but the CIT(A) skirted to deal with them. More recently Hon'ble Bombay High Court in DI(international Taxation) i/s. Krupp Udhe GMBH 354 ITR 173 (Bombay) following Delhi High Court judgment in Industrial Engineering projects (P) Ltd (supra), have held that reimbursement of expenses would not be liable to be included in income. To conclude a reimbursement can never be a trading receipt. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) is equally wrong in holding that the cost of land is expenditure in…

The Director of Income Tax vs. M/S Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/214/2014HC Karnataka01 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 260Section 260ASection 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ITR 28 (SC), 'CIT VS. SIEMENS AKTIONGESELLSCHAFT', (2009) 310 ITR 320 (BOMBAY), 'CIT VS. DUNLOP RUBBER CO. LTD., (1983) 142 ITR 493 (CALCUTTA), 'DIT VS. WNS GLOBAL SERVICES (UK) LTD.', (2013) 32 TAXMANN.COM 54 (BOMBAY), 'DIT VS. KRUPP UDHE GMBH', (2013) 354 ITR 173 (BOMBAY), 'CIT VS. A.P.MOLLER MAERSK A/S', (2015) 374 ITR 497 (BOMBAY), 'CUT VS. ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LTD.', ITA NOS.1107, 1117, 1174, OF 2015 & 126 OF 2016 (BOMBAY), 'DIT VS. HCL INFOSYSTEM LTD', (2005) 274 ITR 261 (DELHI), ' 14 CIT VS. DE BEERS INDIA MINERALS (P.) LTD.', (2012) 346 ITR 467 (KAR), ' IDS SOFTWARE SOLUTTIONS…

ITO (TDS), New Delhi vs. M/S. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3488/DEL/2012[2008-09 (F.Y. 2007-08)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3253/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 3254/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09)

Section 195Section 4Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)

…TO (TDS) ITA No. 6640/DEL/2013 order dated 08.01.2019 wherein the reliance was made on the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Industrial Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Krupp Udhe GmbH 354 ITR 173. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the order under Section 271 of the Act as well as the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant records. It is pertinent to note that payments made to non residents in the present case the payments made to them are purely of reimbursement in nature and does not fa…

ITO (TDS), New Delhi vs. M/S. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3487/DEL/2012[2007-08 (F.Y. 2006-07)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3253/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 3254/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09)

Section 195Section 4Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)

…TO (TDS) ITA No. 6640/DEL/2013 order dated 08.01.2019 wherein the reliance was made on the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Industrial Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Krupp Udhe GmbH 354 ITR 173. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the order under Section 271 of the Act as well as the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant records. It is pertinent to note that payments made to non residents in the present case the payments made to them are purely of reimbursement in nature and does not fa…

Dlf Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3254/DEL/2012[2008-09 (F.Y. 2007-08)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3253/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 3254/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09)

Section 195Section 4Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)

…TO (TDS) ITA No. 6640/DEL/2013 order dated 08.01.2019 wherein the reliance was made on the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Industrial Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Krupp Udhe GmbH 354 ITR 173. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the order under Section 271 of the Act as well as the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant records. It is pertinent to note that payments made to non residents in the present case the payments made to them are purely of reimbursement in nature and does not fa…

Dlf Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3253/DEL/2012[2007-08 (F.Y. 2006-07)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3253/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 3254/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09)

Section 195Section 4Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)

…TO (TDS) ITA No. 6640/DEL/2013 order dated 08.01.2019 wherein the reliance was made on the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Industrial Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Krupp Udhe GmbH 354 ITR 173. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the order under Section 271 of the Act as well as the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant records. It is pertinent to note that payments made to non residents in the present case the payments made to them are purely of reimbursement in nature and does not fa…

Director of IT M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. (International Tatution) v. Krupp Udhe GmbH (354 ITR 173) — Cited in 26 Judgments | BharatTax