DIT (International Taxation) v. A.P. Moller Maersk AS

5 SCC 651Reported decision2017#9244 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also reported as

246 Taxmann 309

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 12Section 143(3) of the Income Tax ActSection 144C(13)Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax ActSection 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

make available conditionmake available clausefees for included servicessection 9(1)(vii)arms length priceenduring benefitfees for technical servicessection 9(1)section 144c(5)arm's length pricedispute resolution paneltax treaty

Judgments citing DIT (International Taxation) v. A.P. Moller Maersk AS

INVESCO HOLDING COMPANY (US) INC.,USA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 846/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.846/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2022-23) Inveso Holding Company (Us) Inc., C/O Invesco (India) P. Ltd., 15Th Floor, Block 6, North Tower, Divyasree Orion Sez, Raidurgam, Serilingampally, Hyderabad, Telangana 5000032 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaeci-9027-N बनाम Vs. Assisnat Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 2(1)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: S/Shri Ankul Goyal & Advitya Grover, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2024 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Shri Ankul Goyal, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Solitary Issue In Present Appeal Is Against The Addition Of Rs.54,85,23,539/- In Respect Of Reimbursement Of Cost For Providing It/Support Services Treated As Fee

For Appellant: S/Shri Ankul Goyal & Advitya GroverFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…ipts did not have any profit element embedded therein. In fact, the Assessing Officer has not disputed the aforesaid factual position. In case of DIT (International Taxation) v. A.P. Moller Maersk AS [2017] 78 taxmann.com 287/246 Taxman 309/392 ITR 186/[2017] 5 SCC 651. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that once the character of the payment is found to be in the nature of reimbursement of expenses without having any profit element embedded therein, it cannot be held to be chargeable to tax. 9. It comes up that the AO has not made any enquiry to rebut the claim of the assessee that the cost incurred by the a…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR DIGILINK LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1158/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "J" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Vodafone Digilink Limited (Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar Digilink Limited) C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase – II, New Delhi – 110020. Maharashtra. [PAN: AAACA3202D] …………. Appellant Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 26(2), New Delhi …………. Respondent Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 26(2), New Delhi …………. Appellant Vs Vodafone Digilink Limited (Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar Digilink Limited) C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase – II, New Delhi – 110020. Maharasht…

VODAFONE DIGILINK LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

ITA 1073/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…{ "clean_text": "INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"J\" BENCH, MUMBAI\nSHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nSHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No. 1073/Del/2015\n(Assessment Year: 2010-2011)\n\nVodafone Digilink Limited\n(Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar Digilink Limited)\nC-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase – II,\nNew Delhi – 110020, Maharashtra.\n[PAN: AAACA3202D] ...................... Appellant\n\nVs\n\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax\nCircle 26(2), New Delhi ..................... Respondent\n\nITA No. 1158/Del/2015\n(Assessment Year: 2010-2011)\n\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax\nCircle…

ACIT , SPL. RANGE-9, NEW DELHI vs. TIMEX GROUP INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7598/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7526/Del/2019 [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/s Timex Group India Ltd. 106-107, Ambadeep Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 PAN-AAACT0773C Assessee Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-9, New Delhi-110002 Revenue ITA No.7598/Del/2019 [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-9, New Delhi-110002 M/s Timex Group India Ltd. 106-107, Ambadeep Building, Vs Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110…

TIMEX GROUP INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. CIT SPL.RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7526/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Timex Group India Ltd. Additional Commissioner Of Income 106-107, Ambadeep Building, Tax, Special Range-9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Vs New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaact0773C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Additional Commissioner Of M/S Timex Group India Ltd. Income Tax, Special Range-9, 106-107, Ambadeep Building, New Delhi-110002 Vs Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaact0773C Revenue Assessee Assessee By Shri Tushar Jarwal, Adv. Shri Aayush Nagpal, Adv. & Shri Vikrant Maheshwari, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rohit Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/s Timex Group India Ltd. Additional Commissioner of Income 106-107, Ambadeep Building, Tax, Special Range-9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Vs New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110001 PAN-AAACT0773C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Additional Commissioner of M/s Timex Group India Ltd. Income Tax, Special Range-9, 106-107, Ambadeep Building, New Delhi-110002 Vs Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 PAN-AAACT0773C Revenue Assessee Assesse…

ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES GROUP ,ETHIOPIA vs. ACIT, INT. TAXATION CIRCLE-1(2)(2), DELHI

ITA 2201/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115ASection 133ASection 147Section 195Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2200 & 2201/Del/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Ethiopian Airlines Group, Vs. ACIT, Unit no. 104, 1st Windfall Intl. Taxation, Sahara Plaza, Circle-1(2)(2), Andheri Kurla Road, Delhi Mumbai PAN: AAACE1046M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Rajiv Palpuri, CA Sh. P.K. Sahu, Adv. Department by Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 13.03.2025 Date of pronouncement 05.06.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s…

INVESCO UK LIMITED,UK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 785/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 274

…ipts did not have any profit element embedded therein. In fact, the Assessing Officer has not disputed the aforesaid factual position. In case of DIT (International Taxation) v. A.P. Moller Maersk AS [2017] 78 taxmann.com 287/246 Taxman 309/392 ITR 186/[2017] 5 SCC 651. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that once the character of the payment is found to be in the nature of reimbursement of expenses without having any profit element embedded therein, it cannot be held to be chargeable to tax. 9. It comes up that the AO has not made any enquiry to rebut the claim of the assessee that the cost incurred by the…

INVESCO HOLDING COMPANY (US) INC.,USA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 784/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 274

…ipts did not have any profit element embedded therein. In fact, the Assessing Officer has not disputed the aforesaid factual position. In case of DIT (International Taxation) v. A.P. Moller Maersk AS [2017] 78 taxmann.com 287/246 Taxman 309/392 ITR 186/[2017] 5 SCC 651. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that once the character of the payment is found to be in the nature of reimbursement of expenses without having any profit element embedded therein, it cannot be held to be chargeable to tax. 9. It comes up that the AO has not made any enquiry to rebut the claim of the assessee that the cost incurred by the…

PLANETCAST INTERNATIONAL PTE.LTD,SINGAPURE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE1(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1832/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Vizaya Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

…st reimbursement of payments made to Singapore government. Hence, the receipts did not have any profit element embedded therein. In fact, the Assessing Officer has not disputed the aforesaid factual position. In case of DIT vs. A.P. Moller Maersk AS (2017) 5 SCC 651, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that once the character of the payment is found to be in the nature of reimbursement of expenses without having any profit element embedded therein, it cannot be held to be chargeable to tax. Identical view has been expressed by the coordinate Benches in the following decisions : (i). SCA Hygiene Product…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PVT LTD

ITA/29/2019HC Karnataka10 Jun 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Srishananda Civil Revision Petition No.29/2019 Between

Section 115Section 37(2)

…dges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that where there are allegations of fraud made, the dispute will be non arbitrable. 66. As regards the other decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the claimant are concerned, (1999) 5 SCC 651 was referred to submit that the dispute or differences must consists of a justiciable issue triable 88 civily and a fair test of this is whether the difference can be compromised lawfully by way of accord and in satisfaction. 67. In so far as the decision in AIR 1972 Mysore 209 is concerned, reference to Order XXX, Rule 1 of CPC is…

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-008733-008734 - 2018Supreme Court02 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…e, and thus no “sum chargeable under the provisions of [the] Act” had been paid, attracting section 195 of the Income Tax Act. To buttress his submission, he relied in particular upon the judgment in Director of Income Tax v. A.P. Moller Maersk AS, (2017) 5 SCC 651. 21. Per contra, Shri Balbir Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Revenue, took us through the provisions of the Income Tax Act, the Copyright Act, the India-USA DTAA and some of the EULAs between the parties. He argued that explanation 2(v) to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act applied to payments to…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kalyani Wines

In the result, I find this appeal bereft of merit and accordingly,

ITTA/6/2010HC Telangana14 Mar 2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

Section 11Section 37

…h, reported in AIR 1996 Bom. 167. Page 18 of 60 (2) Nilkanth and Bros Construction vs. Superintending Engineer N.H. Salem and others, reported In AIR 1988 SC 2045. (3) Olympus Superstructure Pvt. Ltd vs. Vijay Khetan and others, reported in (1999) 5 SCC 651. 8. Per contra, Mr. Neelanjan Deka, the learned Counsel for the respondents has raised following points for consideration of this Court:- (a) That, a claim to be the subject matter of the arbitration proceeding has to be a „notified claims‟ within the meaning of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), but in the present proceeding none of…

DIT (International Taxation) v. A.P. Moller Maersk AS (5 SCC 651) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax