DIT v. Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd.

346 ITR 504High Court2012#566 most cited

What is DIT v. Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd. authority for?

For fees for technical services to be taxable under a tax treaty's 'make available' clause, a transfer of technology enabling the recipient to independently perform the service in the future is necessary, beyond mere service rendition. The case also clarifies that re-insurance services do not constitute 'imparting' of information taxable as royalty.

171

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DIT v. Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd. · Section 9(1)(vii) · fees for technical services · FTS make available clause · tax treaty · transfer of technology · royalty · re-insurance income · Section 90(2) · Income-tax Act 1961 · enduring benefit · make available condition

Also reported as

20 Taxmann.com 807207 Taxmann 121

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 1961Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 270ASection 144C(3)Section 234D

Issues it is cited on

make available clausefees for included servicesmake available conditionsection 9(1)(vii)section 9(l)section 90(2)fees for technical servicesenduring benefitsection 44bbsection 9(1)tax treatysection 44b

Judgments citing DIT v. Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd.

Microstrategy Singapore Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT(Internationa Taxation), Circle-2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2686/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Judical Member Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9

…d to demonstrate that the ‘make available’ condition has been satisfied, the amount received cannot be treated as FTS in terms with Article 12(4)(b) of the Treaty. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions: • DIT vs Guy Carpenter (346 ITR 504) (Delhi HC) • Interteck Services [307 ITR 418]. The decision has been followed in the case of M/s Invensys Systems Inc [AAR No 796 of 2009]. 14 (Microstrategy Singapore Pte. Ltd.) • Anapharma Inc [305 ITR 405]. The decision has been followed in the case of M/s BharatiAxa General Insurance Co Ltd [AAR No 845 of 2009 • CIT v. De Beers India Miner…

M/S Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/O Mtr Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (It), 100 Feet Inner Ring Road, Asmnt, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Aabco4087B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 17/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143 (3) By The Ld.Dcit, Asmnt, Circle-2(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. Barred By Limitation The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao') Is Barred By Limitation In View Of The Express Provisions Of Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Wherein, The Order Should Be Passed Within One Month From The End Of The Month In Which Dispute

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate
Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/s. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/o MTR Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner of No. 1, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Income Tax (IT), 100 feet inner ring road, ASMNT, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. PAN: AABCO4087B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT Revenue by (DR) Date of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Presen…

DCIT (It) 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mwh Consultants Uk Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 961/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Stantee Uk Ltd., (Formerly Known Tax (It)-Circle-3(2)(2), As Mwh Uk Ltd.), 1St Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Vs. C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Point, Mumbai-400021. One International Centre Tower 3, 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Prabhadevi (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aahcm 3429 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Stantee Uk Ltd., (Formerly Known As The Deputy Commissioner Of Mwh Uk Ltd.), Income Tax (It)-Circle-3(2)(2), 1St Floor, Air India Building, C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp One Vs. International Centre Tower 3, 28Th Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Prabhadevi (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aahcm 3429 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Stantee Uk Ltd., (Formerly Known As The Deputy Commissioner Of Mwh Uk Ltd.), Income Tax (It)-Circle-3(2)(2), 1St Floor, Air India Building, C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp One Vs. International Centre Tower 3, 28Th Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Prabhadevi (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aahcm 3429 K

For Respondent: Mr. Milind Chavan, DR
Section 115ASection 144C(5)Section 234B

…(formerly known as MWH UK Ltd.)  Decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Diamond Services International P. Ltd v/s. Union of India (2008) 169 Taxman 201;  Decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of DIT v/s. Guy Carpenter and Co. Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 504;  Decision of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v/s .De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 457;  Decision of the Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of Intertek Testing Services India Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 307 IT 418;  Decision of the Delhi Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Sheraton International Inc…

Netapp B.V., Noida vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1882/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2021AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…s rendering service through qualified personnel of net app India or third-party service providers it is being made available to the Indian customers. We also carefully considered the decision of the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in case of DIT versus Guy Carpenter 346 ITR 504 (Delhi), wherein the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court has dealt with the concept of ―make available‘ as mentioned in the double taxation avoidance agreement. As the services rendered by the assessee are installation services, warranty services and professional services. It cannot be said that they are made available to the customers using Net app BV prod…

Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 213/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2021AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)

…ble’. 9. As for the connotations of make available clause in the treaty, this issue is no longer res integra. There are at least two non-jurisdictional High Court decisions, namely Honble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd ([(2012) 346 ITR 504 (Del)] and Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs De Beers India Pvt Ltd [(2012) 346 ITR 467 (Kar)] in favour of the assessee, and there is no contrary decision by Honble jurisdictional High Court or by Honble Supreme Court. In De Beers case (supra), Their Lordships posed the question, as to “what is meaning of make available”, to them…

Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 954/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2021AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

…ble’. 9. As for the connotations of make available clause in the treaty, this issue is no longer res integra. There are at least two non-jurisdictional High Court decisions, namely Honble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd ([(2012) 346 ITR 504 (Del)] and Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs De Beers India Pvt Ltd [(2012) 346 ITR 467 (Kar)] in favour of the assessee, and there is no contrary decision by Honble jurisdictional High Court or by Honble Supreme Court. In De Beers case (supra), Their Lordships posed the question, as to “what is meaning of make available”, to them…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hero Honda Motors Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6302/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…behind the service, then the income would not satisfy the test of “make available”. Reliance for the aforesaid meaning was placed on the following decisions: • CIT vs. De Beers India Minerals (P) Ltd: 346 ITR 467 (Karnataka) • DIT vs. Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd: 346 ITR 504 (Del-HC) • Raymond Ltd v. DCIT: 86 ITD 791 (Mumbai) • Ernst & Young India: 323 ITR 184 (AAR) • ICICI Bank Ltd. v. DCIT: (2008) 20 SOT 453 (Mum) • Bharti AXA: 326 ITR 477 (AAR) • Worley Parsons Services Pty Ltd (AAR No. 750 of 2007) 16.0.2 It was argued that the assessee had engaged the services of Shri Tarun Khanna merely for providing services…

M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6282/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…behind the service, then the income would not satisfy the test of “make available”. Reliance for the aforesaid meaning was placed on the following decisions: • CIT vs. De Beers India Minerals (P) Ltd: 346 ITR 467 (Karnataka) • DIT vs. Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd: 346 ITR 504 (Del-HC) • Raymond Ltd v. DCIT: 86 ITD 791 (Mumbai) • Ernst & Young India: 323 ITR 184 (AAR) • ICICI Bank Ltd. v. DCIT: (2008) 20 SOT 453 (Mum) • Bharti AXA: 326 ITR 477 (AAR) • Worley Parsons Services Pty Ltd (AAR No. 750 of 2007) 16.0.2 It was argued that the assessee had engaged the services of Shri Tarun Khanna merely for providing services…

Essity Hygiene and Helath Ab, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 7315/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)

…available' clause in the treaty, this issue is no longer res integra. There are at least two non-jurisdictional High Court decisions, namely Hon'ble Assessment year: 2015-16 Page 17 of 19 Delhi High Court in the case of DIT v. Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd. [(2012) 346 ITR 504 (Del)] and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. De Beers India (P.) Ltd. [(2012) 346 ITR 467 (Kar)] in favour of the assessee, and there is no contrary decision by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court or by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In De Beers India (P.) Ltd. case (supra), their Lordships posed the question, as to "what is meaning of 'ma…

M/S Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (It) 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016-2017

ITA 6638/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Shell Information The Deputy Commissioner Of Technology International Bv, Income Tax (International C/O B S R & Co. Llp, Taxation)-4(2)(1), 5Th Floor, Lodha Excelus, Vs. 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Apollo Mills Compound, Air India Building, Nariman Point, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaics9091A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri V. Sreekar (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2020

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar (CIT DR)
Section 143Section 2(24)Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (VP) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s Shell Information The Deputy Commissioner of Technology International BV, Income Tax (International C/o B S R & Co. LLP, Taxation)-4(2)(1), 5th Floor, Lodha Excelus, Vs. 17th Floor, Room No. 1708, Apollo Mills Compound, Air India Building, Nariman Point, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400011 PAN: AAICS9091A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR) Revenue by : Shri V. Sreekar (CIT DR) Date of Hearing: 10/12/2019 Date…

Shell Information Technology Inernational Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 7283/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bledy. Cit (International Taxation) – 4(2)(1) M/S. Shell Information Technology V. Room No. 1708, 17Th Floor International Bv Air India Building, Nariman Point C/O B.S.R. & Co. Llp. Mumbai – 400 021 5Th Floor, Lodha Excelus Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg Mahalakshmi, Mumbai – 400 011 Pan: Aaics9091A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Department By : Shri V. Sreekar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar
Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 234DSection 244A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy. CIT (International Taxation) – 4(2)(1) M/s. Shell Information Technology v. Room No. 1708, 17th Floor International BV Air India Building, Nariman Point C/o B.S.R. & Co. LLP. Mumbai – 400 021 5th Floor, Lodha Excelus Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg Mahalakshmi, Mumbai – 400 011 PAN: AAICS9091A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Madhur Agarwal Department by : Shri V. Sreekar Date of Hearing : 05.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 1…

Standard Chartered Securities (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed, in the terms indicated above

ITA 1859/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: A Coordinate Bench Of This Tribunal, The Matter Was Remanded Back To The File Of The Cit(A) By Observing As Follows:-

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 40

…r to the following observations in Shell Global Solutions International BV vs ITO [(2016) 157 ITD 24 (Ahd)]: There are at least two non-jurisdictional High Court decisions, namely Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT v. Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd. [2012] 346 ITR 504 and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. De Beers India (P.) Ltd. [2012] 346 ITR 467/208 Taxman 406/21 taxmann.com 214 in favour of the assessee, and there is no contrary decision by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court or by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In De Beers India (P.) Ltd. case (supra), their Lordships posed the question, as to "wha…

Kelly Services Inc., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of International Taxation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 5527/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2019AY 2010-11
Section 143C(13)

…chnology so as to satisfy the make available clause. As for the connotations of “make available”, we find that there are at least two non-jurisdictional High Court decisions, namely Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT v. Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd. [2012] 346 ITR 504 and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. De Beers India (P.) Ltd. [2012] 346 ITR 467/208 Taxman 406/21 taxmann.com 214 in favour of the assessee, and there is no contrary decision by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court or by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In De Beers India (P.) Ltd. case (supra), their Lordships posed the question, as to "wha…

Schawk India Private Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 103/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.100, 101 & 103/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 195

…mann.com 5 and also decision of the Special Bench of this Tribunal at Mumbai in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) 30 SOT 374. The Ld. representative has also placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in DIT v. Guy Carpenter & Co. Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 504. 4 I.T.A. Nos.100, 101 & 103/Chny/18 3. We heard Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. The Ld. D.R. submitted that he is placing reliance on the observation made by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(Appeals). 4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available…

Schawk India Private Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 101/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.100, 101 & 103/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 195

…mann.com 5 and also decision of the Special Bench of this Tribunal at Mumbai in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) 30 SOT 374. The Ld. representative has also placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in DIT v. Guy Carpenter & Co. Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 504. 4 I.T.A. Nos.100, 101 & 103/Chny/18 3. We heard Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. The Ld. D.R. submitted that he is placing reliance on the observation made by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(Appeals). 4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available…

Schawk India Private Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 100/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.100, 101 & 103/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 195

…mann.com 5 and also decision of the Special Bench of this Tribunal at Mumbai in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) 30 SOT 374. The Ld. representative has also placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in DIT v. Guy Carpenter & Co. Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 504. 4 I.T.A. Nos.100, 101 & 103/Chny/18 3. We heard Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. The Ld. D.R. submitted that he is placing reliance on the observation made by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(Appeals). 4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available…

ACIT (It) -4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 6334/MUM/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 195ASection 248Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…angements. The amounts received by RJ-S could not, therefore, be taxed as 'fees for technical services either. There are at least two non-jurisdictional High Court decisions, namely Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd [(2012) 346 ITR 504 (Del)] and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs De Beers India Pvt Ltd [(2012) 346 ITR 467 (Kar)], in favour of the assessee, and there is no contrary ITA Nos. 6331 to 6334/Mum/2018 ACIT Vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd Assessment year: 2018-19 Page 21 of 21 decision by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court or by Hon'ble Supreme Court. W…

ACIT (It) -4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 6333/MUM/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 195ASection 248Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…angements. The amounts received by RJ-S could not, therefore, be taxed as 'fees for technical services either. There are at least two non-jurisdictional High Court decisions, namely Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd [(2012) 346 ITR 504 (Del)] and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs De Beers India Pvt Ltd [(2012) 346 ITR 467 (Kar)], in favour of the assessee, and there is no contrary ITA Nos. 6331 to 6334/Mum/2018 ACIT Vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd Assessment year: 2018-19 Page 21 of 21 decision by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court or by Hon'ble Supreme Court. W…

ACIT (It) -4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 6332/MUM/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 195ASection 248Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…angements. The amounts received by RJ-S could not, therefore, be taxed as 'fees for technical services either. There are at least two non-jurisdictional High Court decisions, namely Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd [(2012) 346 ITR 504 (Del)] and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs De Beers India Pvt Ltd [(2012) 346 ITR 467 (Kar)], in favour of the assessee, and there is no contrary ITA Nos. 6331 to 6334/Mum/2018 ACIT Vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd Assessment year: 2018-19 Page 21 of 21 decision by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court or by Hon'ble Supreme Court. W…

Cooper Bussmann India Pvt. Ltd., Pondicherry vs. JCIT, Pondicherry

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-

ITA 178/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1559 To 1563, 2592 - 2594/Chny/2014) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2008-09) Vs The Acit, M/S. Cooper Bussmann India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1, 34, Evr Street, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Pondicherry - 605 111. Pan: Aabcs 0431R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 1662 & 1663/Chny/2016 & 178/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Vs The Jcit, M/S. Cooper Bussmann India Pvt. Ltd., Range – 1, 34, Evr Street, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Pondicherry - 605 111. Pan: Aabcs 0431R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 80ISection 80l

…e, experience or skill to the assessee which could be utilized / applied by it independently. Therefore the above payments are not covered under FTS under the India UK DTAA. The ld.AR relied on the following case laws:- 1. Guy Carpenter & Co. Limited : [2012] 346 ITR 504 (Del) 2. CIT vs. De Beers India Mineral (P) Ltd : 346 ITR 467 (Kar) 3. ACIT vs. Vishwak Solutions (P) Ltd: [2015] 38 ITR (T) 522 (Mad) 4.2 Per contra, the ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 4.3 We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material. Since the payment is towards certification, it is purely profes…