DIT v. AP Moller Maersk

392 ITR 116Reported decision#17820 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 9(1)(vii) of the ActSection 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

fees for included servicessection 90(2)section 9(1)(vii)computer softwareenduring benefitfees for technical servicestax treatysection 90section 9(1)non-residentcross objectiondouble taxation

Judgments citing DIT v. AP Moller Maersk

DCIT(It)-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jefferies International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2342/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

…ut any mark up, it is settled position that reimbursement of expenses at cost is not taxable as fees for technical services since there is no element of income attached to the transaction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of DIT v. AP Moller Maersk (392 ITR 116) SC as under: - “11. Aforesaid are the findings of facts. It is clearly held that no technical services are provided by the assessee to the agents. Once these are accepted, by no stretch of imagination, payments made by the agents can be treated as fee for technical service. It is in the nature of reimbursement of cost whereby the three agents pa…

DCIT(It)-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jefferies International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2341/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

…ut any mark up, it is settled position that reimbursement of expenses at cost is not taxable as fees for technical services since there is no element of income attached to the transaction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of DIT v. AP Moller Maersk (392 ITR 116) SC as under: - “11. Aforesaid are the findings of facts. It is clearly held that no technical services are provided by the assessee to the agents. Once these are accepted, by no stretch of imagination, payments made by the agents can be treated as fee for technical service. It is in the nature of reimbursement of cost whereby the three agents pa…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Jefferies International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1775/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

…ut any mark up, it is settled position that reimbursement of expenses at cost is not taxable as fees for technical services since there is no element of income attached to the transaction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of DIT v. AP Moller Maersk (392 ITR 116) SC as under: - “11. Aforesaid are the findings of facts. It is clearly held that no technical services are provided by the assessee to the agents. Once these are accepted, by no stretch of imagination, payments made by the agents can be treated as fee for technical service. It is in the nature of reimbursement of cost whereby the three agents pa…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Jefferies International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1774/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

…ut any mark up, it is settled position that reimbursement of expenses at cost is not taxable as fees for technical services since there is no element of income attached to the transaction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of DIT v. AP Moller Maersk (392 ITR 116) SC as under: - “11. Aforesaid are the findings of facts. It is clearly held that no technical services are provided by the assessee to the agents. Once these are accepted, by no stretch of imagination, payments made by the agents can be treated as fee for technical service. It is in the nature of reimbursement of cost whereby the three agents pa…

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

…of cost incurred. In this regard, the reliance is placed 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)…

DIT v. AP Moller Maersk (392 ITR 116) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax