DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co.

292 ITR 416Supreme Court of India2007#210 most cited

What is DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co. authority for?

A Permanent Establishment (PE) signifies a foreign enterprise's virtual projection into another country, with a fixed place PE existing where an MNE's business is wholly or partly carried on. A dependent agent PE requires the agent to act as such and/or have the authority to conclude contracts for the foreign enterprise under DTAA provisions.

360

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co. · Morgan Stanley PE · 292 ITR 416 · Permanent Establishment DTAA · fixed place PE · dependent agent PE · Article 5 India-USA DTAA · authority to conclude contracts PE · outsourcing MNE · service PE · agency PE

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 144C(13)Section 234ASection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 271(1)(c)Section 5
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

dependent agent peinstallation peagency peservice pefixed place peuse of equipmentprofit split methodsection 44dfunctional analysisfar analysismake available clausesection 44bb

Judgments citing DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co.

Ngc Network Asia Llc, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1254/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2021AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 147

…he judgment, if the correct arm's length price is applied and paid then nothing further would be left to be taxed in the hands of the Foreign Enterprise. 13. Considering the above principle as may be discerned from the judgment in DIT (International Taxation) 292 ITR 416 (supra) it would be clear that— (1) Considering the CBDT Circular No. 742 it would be fair and reasonable that the taxable income is computed at 10 per cent of the gross profits. In the instant case insofar as marketing services are concerned by the arm's length principle what has been paid is more than 10 per cent as can be seen from the order…

ADIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai vs. Zee Tv Usa Inc, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objections are partly allowed

ITA 3161/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 3161/मुं/2010 ("न.व. 2006-07) The Adit(It)-2(2), Room No.116, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N.M. Road, Mumbai 400 038 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Zee Tv Usa Inc., C/O. Mgb & Co Jolly Bhavan 2, 1St Floor, New Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaacf1291K ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent C.O. No.15/Mum/2011 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3161/Mum/2010-A.Y. 2006-07) M/S. Zee Tv Usa Inc., C/O. Mgb & Co Jolly Bhavan 2, 1St Floor, New Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaacf1291K ...... Cross Objector Vs. The Adit(It)-2(2), Room No.116, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N.M. Road, Mumbai 400 038 ...... Appellant In Appeal Assessee By : S/Shri Niraj Seth & Jay Bhanshali Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Subramaniyam सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/05/2021

For Appellant: S/Shri NiraJ Seth and Jay BhanshaliFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subramaniyam
Section 234B

…n India its income is not taxable in India as it has paid arms length remuneration/commission to its Agent in India having regards to the functions and risk performed by the agent, which is taxed in India as held by Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley 292 ITR 416 and Bombay High Court in the case of Sony Entertainment Television (Singapore) Limited 173 Taxman 475. 2. Without prejudice to the decision of the Hon. CIT (A), (wherein it is held that the assessee has no PE in India hence its income is not taxable in India), even if it is held that assessee is taxable in India, interest u/s 234B of the Act is n…

Hyatt International Southwest Asia Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

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

ITA 727/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 727/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Hyatt International Southwest Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Asia Ltd., Office 301, Level 3, Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), International Precinct 3, Dubai International Taxation, Financial Centre (Difc), Po Box New Delhi -506727, Dubai, Uae (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch2598H Assessee By : Sh. Ajit Kumar Jain Revenue By : Dr. Prabha Kant, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Kumar JainFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)

…ess. Thus, we find that the assessee has met the twin criterion of existence of a fixed place of business and carrying out of business from such fixed place of business as enunciated of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley & Co. 292 ITR 416 (SC). The claim of the assessee that they did not have a place at their disposal cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Formula One World Championships Ltd. 394 ITR 80, in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan and also E-funds IT Solutions 86 Taxman 240. The facts on record undisputedly prove that the premis…

M/S. Joy Global (Uk) Limited, (Formerly Knows As Joy Mining Machinery Limited), Kolkatta vs. The ACIT (Int. Taxn.)-2, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2891/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2891/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 M/S Joy Global(Uk) Limited, A.C.I.T., (Formerly Known As Joy Mining Vs. International Taxation)-2, Machinery Limited) Ahmedabad. C/O Joy Global (India) Ltd.,, 85/1, Topsia Road (South), Kolkata-700046. Pan: Aaccj3893R

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT.D.R
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 9(1)

…been offered to tax in India. Thus, there is nothing further which can be attributed to tax in India. For this proposition, we drive support from decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT (International Taxation) vs. Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. 292 ITR 416. Asstt. Year 2011-12 9 27. Considering the facts in totality in the light of the judicial decisions discussed hereinabove and considering the facts in issue from all possible angles, we do not find any merit in the findings of the AO/DRP. We, therefore, set aside the findings direct the A.O to delete the impugned additions. The other issue relat…

Ricardo Uk Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 416/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Senior DR
Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 9(1)

…h proportion of 50% of India's centric profits would be attributable to the Indian PE of the Appellant. 5. That the ld. CIT (A) has completely failed to appreciate the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. [(292 ITR 416) (SC)] and Set Satellite (Singapore) [(307 ITR 205) (Bom)], that in case the commission paid to Indian agent can be established to be at arm's length from an Indian transfer pricing perspective, no further profits shall be deemed to be attributable to the Indian agent. 6. That the ld. CIT (A) has completely disregarded the principle paid down by…

Ricardo Uk Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 4756/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Senior DR
Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 9(1)

…h proportion of 50% of India's centric profits would be attributable to the Indian PE of the Appellant. 5. That the ld. CIT (A) has completely failed to appreciate the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. [(292 ITR 416) (SC)] and Set Satellite (Singapore) [(307 ITR 205) (Bom)], that in case the commission paid to Indian agent can be established to be at arm's length from an Indian transfer pricing perspective, no further profits shall be deemed to be attributable to the Indian agent. 6. That the ld. CIT (A) has completely disregarded the principle paid down by…

Ricardo Uk Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 4911/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Senior DR
Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 9(1)

…h proportion of 50% of India's centric profits would be attributable to the Indian PE of the Appellant. 5. That the ld. CIT (A) has completely failed to appreciate the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. [(292 ITR 416) (SC)] and Set Satellite (Singapore) [(307 ITR 205) (Bom)], that in case the commission paid to Indian agent can be established to be at arm's length from an Indian transfer pricing perspective, no further profits shall be deemed to be attributable to the Indian agent. 6. That the ld. CIT (A) has completely disregarded the principle paid down by…

Ricardo Uk Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Intl. Taxation, Circle- 3(1)(1), New Delhi

ITA 4910/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Senior DR
Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 9(1)

…h proportion of 50% of India's centric profits would be attributable to the Indian PE of the Appellant. 5. That the ld. CIT (A) has completely failed to appreciate the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. [(292 ITR 416) (SC)] and Set Satellite (Singapore) [(307 ITR 205) (Bom)], that in case the commission paid to Indian agent can be established to be at arm's length from an Indian transfer pricing perspective, no further profits shall be deemed to be attributable to the Indian agent. 6. That the ld. CIT (A) has completely disregarded the principle paid down by…

Ricardo Uk Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Intl. Taxation, Circle- 3(1)(1), New Delhi

ITA 4909/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Senior DR
Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 9(1)

…h proportion of 50% of India's centric profits would be attributable to the Indian PE of the Appellant. 5. That the ld. CIT (A) has completely failed to appreciate the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. [(292 ITR 416) (SC)] and Set Satellite (Singapore) [(307 ITR 205) (Bom)], that in case the commission paid to Indian agent can be established to be at arm's length from an Indian transfer pricing perspective, no further profits shall be deemed to be attributable to the Indian agent. 6. That the ld. CIT (A) has completely disregarded the principle paid down by…

Ricardo Uk Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 3969/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Senior DR
Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 9(1)

…h proportion of 50% of India's centric profits would be attributable to the Indian PE of the Appellant. 5. That the ld. CIT (A) has completely failed to appreciate the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. [(292 ITR 416) (SC)] and Set Satellite (Singapore) [(307 ITR 205) (Bom)], that in case the commission paid to Indian agent can be established to be at arm's length from an Indian transfer pricing perspective, no further profits shall be deemed to be attributable to the Indian agent. 6. That the ld. CIT (A) has completely disregarded the principle paid down by…

Ricardo Uk Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 3968/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Senior DR
Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 9(1)

…h proportion of 50% of India's centric profits would be attributable to the Indian PE of the Appellant. 5. That the ld. CIT (A) has completely failed to appreciate the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. [(292 ITR 416) (SC)] and Set Satellite (Singapore) [(307 ITR 205) (Bom)], that in case the commission paid to Indian agent can be established to be at arm's length from an Indian transfer pricing perspective, no further profits shall be deemed to be attributable to the Indian agent. 6. That the ld. CIT (A) has completely disregarded the principle paid down by…

Ricardo Uk Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Intl. Taxation, Circle- 3(1)(1), New Delhi

ITA 3967/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Senior DR
Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 9(1)

…h proportion of 50% of India's centric profits would be attributable to the Indian PE of the Appellant. 5. That the ld. CIT (A) has completely failed to appreciate the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. [(292 ITR 416) (SC)] and Set Satellite (Singapore) [(307 ITR 205) (Bom)], that in case the commission paid to Indian agent can be established to be at arm's length from an Indian transfer pricing perspective, no further profits shall be deemed to be attributable to the Indian agent. 6. That the ld. CIT (A) has completely disregarded the principle paid down by…

Asia Tv (Uk) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2006-07 is partly allowed

ITA 8011/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sreenivas Raghavan, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…s similar to the remuneration paid by the assessee to M/s ZTL), being at arm’s length price, extinguishes any tax liability in the hands of Zee TV USA. Also reliance is placed by him on the decision in ADIT v. E-Funds (399 ITR 34) (SC), DIT v. Morgan Stanley (292 ITR 416) (SC), Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. DDIT (307 ITR 205) (Bom), DDIT (IT) v. Asia Today Limited (4346/Mum/2009), DIT (IT) v. Delmas France (232 Taxman 401) (Bom), International Global Networks ITA No. 8011 & 8012/2010 7 Asia TV (UK) Ltd. BV v. ADIT (IT) [84 taxmann.com 188, DDIT v. B4U International Holdings Ltd. (23 taxmann.com 372) an…

The DDIT(It)-1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Asia Today Ltd (Formerly Winter Heath Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals are dismissed as infructuous and all the four cross objections are allowed

ITA 5042/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2021AY 2005-2006

…n India, even if it is held that the assessee has a PE in India, the income of the assessee is not taxable in India as it has paid remuneration/ commission to agent in India on arm's length basis, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley 292 ITR 416 {i.e. DIT (International Taxation) v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. [2007] 292 ITR 416 (SC)]} and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sony Entertainment Television (Singapore) Limited (173 Taxman 475) {i.e. Set Satellite Pte Ltd Vs CIT [(2009) 307 ITR 205 (Bom)]} 5. Learned counsel's contention is that the issue is covered, in favour of the ass…

The ADIT(It)-1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Asia Today Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals are dismissed as infructuous and all the four cross objections are allowed

ITA 1879/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2021AY 2004-2005

…n India, even if it is held that the assessee has a PE in India, the income of the assessee is not taxable in India as it has paid remuneration/ commission to agent in India on arm's length basis, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley 292 ITR 416 {i.e. DIT (International Taxation) v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. [2007] 292 ITR 416 (SC)]} and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sony Entertainment Television (Singapore) Limited (173 Taxman 475) {i.e. Set Satellite Pte Ltd Vs CIT [(2009) 307 ITR 205 (Bom)]} 5. Learned counsel's contention is that the issue is covered, in favour of the ass…

The ADIT(It)-1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Asia Today Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals are dismissed as infructuous and all the four cross objections are allowed

ITA 1878/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2021AY 2002-2003

…n India, even if it is held that the assessee has a PE in India, the income of the assessee is not taxable in India as it has paid remuneration/ commission to agent in India on arm's length basis, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley 292 ITR 416 {i.e. DIT (International Taxation) v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. [2007] 292 ITR 416 (SC)]} and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sony Entertainment Television (Singapore) Limited (173 Taxman 475) {i.e. Set Satellite Pte Ltd Vs CIT [(2009) 307 ITR 205 (Bom)]} 5. Learned counsel's contention is that the issue is covered, in favour of the ass…

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)

…ELHI), ' 14 CIT VS. DE BEERS INDIA MINERALS (P.) LTD.', (2012) 346 ITR 467 (KAR), ' IDS SOFTWARE SOLUTTIONS (INDIA)(P.) LTD. VS. ITO', (2009) 122 TTJ 410 (BANGALORE) & 'DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) VS. MORGAN STANLEY & CO.', (2007) 292 ITR 416 (SC). 9. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of Section 9(i)(vii) and Section 195(1) of the Act, which is reproduced below for the facility of reference: 9(i)(vii) income by way of fees for technical services13 payab…

Espn Star Sports Maritius S.N.C. Et Compagnie, Mauritius vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4542/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3760 & 4542/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 9

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, "द"ली आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "द"ली "द"ली "यायपीठ "द"ली "यायपीठ "यायपीठ “डी”, "द"ली "यायपीठ "द"ली "द"ली म"म"म"म" "द"ली IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI सु"ी सुषमा चावला, उपा"य", एवं डॉ. बी आर आर कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम", BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VICE PRESIDENT & Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.3760 & 4542/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C et Compagnie (now known as ESS A…

Espn Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. Et Compagnie, Mauritius vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3760/DEL/2016[200910]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2020

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3760 & 4542/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 9

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, "द"ली आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "द"ली "द"ली "यायपीठ "द"ली "यायपीठ "यायपीठ “डी”, "द"ली "यायपीठ "द"ली "द"ली म"म"म"म" "द"ली IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI सु"ी सुषमा चावला, उपा"य", एवं डॉ. बी आर आर कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम", BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VICE PRESIDENT & Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.3760 & 4542/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C et Compagnie (now known as ESS A…

ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi vs. M/S. Mitsui & Co. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4764/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, Sr. DR

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year 2012-13 ACIT (International Vs. M/s. Mitsui & Co. Ltd. Taxation) Plot No. D-1, Circle-2(2)(1), 4th Floor, Room No. 411, Salcon Ras Vilas, 4th Floor, E-2 Block, District Centre, Saket Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic New Delhi – 110 017 Centre, PAN AAACM5469Q Minto Road New Delhi – 110 002. (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No. 363/Del/2016 Asstt. Year 2012-13 M/s. Mitsui & Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (International Plot No. D-1, Taxation) 4th Floor, Circle…