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.

How many judgments cite DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co.?

360 judgments on BharatTax cite DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co. (292 ITR 416), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 234B, Section 144C(13), Section 234A, Section 270A, Section 9(1)(vi).

DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co. (292 ITR 416)

Nokia Net Works Nokia Gruop Finland vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the issues which have been remanded back by the Hon'ble High Court to this Tribunal stands decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

ITA 1963/DEL/2001[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2018AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Amit SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shiv Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 3

…ntext of Service PE but also PE under Article 5(5) and 5(1). In support, of this contention he strongly relied upon the ratio in the judgment 55 I.T.As. No.1963 & 1964/DEL/2001 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. (2007) 292 ITR 416 and Delhi High Court judgment in Centrica India Offshore vs. CIT, reported in (2014) 364 ITR 336 (Del). 30. The Installation Contracts immediately after the incorporation of Indian Company has also been signed by same person, Mr. Hannu Karavitra. Not only that, whenever the assessee’s employee use to come, then the NIPL was providing infrastruct…

DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Daimler Ag (Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler Ag), Mumbai

ITA 5704/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Dcit (It)-2(1)(2), M/S Daimler Ag Room No. 1713, 17Th Floor, C/O Srbc & Associates Llp बिधम/ Air India Building, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Nariman Point, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Dadar (W), Mumbai-400050 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcd2354C (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia &For Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(i)

…d out by ld. AR and the operative para is reproduced below for the sake of convenience: 31. The following decisions cited by the assessee can be extracted for this purpose. “the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme court in case of DIT vs. Morgon Stanley & Co Inc 292 ITR 416 (refer page 555,556 & 565) of Paper Book Volume III, wherein the Hon'ble apex court has observed that since the assessee did riot conclude any contracts on behalf of morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. (MSCo), it did not have an agency PE in India. Similar view has also been taken by the Special Bench o Delhi Tribunal in case of Motorola Inc & Others v DCI…

Corning Sas-India Branch Office, Gurgaon vs. DDIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4795/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 4678/Del/2010 (A.Y 2005-06)

Section 143(3)Section 9Section 92C

…aken with the PE is accepted to be at arm’s length, no additional profit is liable to be attributed to the PE in India. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of DIT (International Transaction) vs. Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. 292 ITR 416 (SC), wherein the Court held that once that permanent establishment has been remunerated on an arm’s length basis, taking into account all the functions, assets and risks, no further allocation of profit is required. The Ld. AR also relied on following decisions: i. ADIT vs. E-Funds IT Solutions Inc 399 ITR 34 (SC) ii. Set Satellite (Singapore)…

Dy. Director of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Corning Sas- India Branch Office, Gurgaon

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4678/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 4678/Del/2010 (A.Y 2005-06)

Section 143(3)Section 9Section 92C

…aken with the PE is accepted to be at arm’s length, no additional profit is liable to be attributed to the PE in India. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of DIT (International Transaction) vs. Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. 292 ITR 416 (SC), wherein the Court held that once that permanent establishment has been remunerated on an arm’s length basis, taking into account all the functions, assets and risks, no further allocation of profit is required. The Ld. AR also relied on following decisions: i. ADIT vs. E-Funds IT Solutions Inc 399 ITR 34 (SC) ii. Set Satellite (Singapore)…

The ADIT (It)-2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Zee Tv Usa Inc., Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5608/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleadit (It) 2(2) V. M/S. Zee Tv Usa Inc. 1St Floor, Room No. 116 Mauritus C/O Zee Telefilms Ltd., Scindia House, Ballard Estate, 135, Dr. Annie Besant Road, N.M. Road, Mumbai – 400 038 Continental Building, Worli Mumbai – 18 Pan No: Aaacf 1291 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co.No. 47/Mum/2010 (A.Y: 2005-06) [Arising Out Of Ita No.5608/Mum/2008] M/S. Zee Tv Usa Inc. V. Adit (It) 2(2) 1St Mauritus C/O Zee Telefilms Ltd., Floor, Room No. 116 135, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Scindia House, Ballard Estate, Continental Building, Worli N.M.Road, Mumbai – 400 038 Mumbai – 18 Pan No: Aaacf 1291 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru

Section 234BSection 92C

…ent in India its income is not taxable in as it has paid arm’s 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’ble 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 assesses is taxable in India, interest u/s 234B of the Act i…

DCIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Transameric Direct Marketing Consultants P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as above

ITA 1978/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.V. RajguruFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth/Mahek Gala

Section 143(3)Section 40

…. The CIT(A) has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. (supra) as well as the decision of the Tribunal in the case of WNS North America Inc. (supra) and DIT(IT) vs. Morgan Stanley & Co., 292 ITR 416 and concluded that there was no need for the assessee to deduct tax at source on the payments made for services which have been rendered by the U.S entity from outside India. In coming to such a conclusion, the CIT(A) has referred to the provisions of India-U.S.A DTAA, though the specific clause of the DTAA have not been spelt-out by him. In sum…

Johnson Matthey Public Ltd. Company, Gurgaon vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purpose

ITA 1143/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(C)Section 9(1)(vii)

…placed in the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Morgan Stanley International Incorporated v. Deputy Director of Income-tax, (IT) (4)(1) [2015] 53 Taxmann.com 457 (Mum. Trib), which has duly considered the case of DIT(A) v. Morgan Stanley & Co. [2007] 292 ITR 416 (SC) and Centrica India Offshore (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2014] 364 ITR 336 (Delhi HC). 26. While enumerating the services performed by the said seconded employee as mentioned in Page No.118 of the Paper Book, Ld.AR submitted that the nature of such activities make it evident that the MD was working as an employee of the Indian subsidiary, managing and…

Spe Networks-India Inc, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the AO stand dismissed

ITA 652/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Section 254(1)Section 9

…however, clarified that the order is in respect of reference received for the assessment year 2002-03 and not for the subsequent assessment years. 20. We may now consider the judgment in DIT (International Taxation) v. Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. [2007ANIMAX 292 ITR 416 (SC). The appeals dealt with the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and United States. That treaty advocated application of the arm' s length principle or provided a mechanism for avoiding double taxation on income. The issue involved, Morgan Stanley and Company (for short, " the MSCo." ) and one of the group companies of Morgan…

DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Spe Networks India Inc., Mumbai

The appeals of the AO stand dismissed

ITA 511/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Section 254(1)Section 9

…however, clarified that the order is in respect of reference received for the assessment year 2002-03 and not for the subsequent assessment years. 20. We may now consider the judgment in DIT (International Taxation) v. Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. [2007ANIMAX 292 ITR 416 (SC). The appeals dealt with the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and United States. That treaty advocated application of the arm' s length principle or provided a mechanism for avoiding double taxation on income. The issue involved, Morgan Stanley and Company (for short, " the MSCo." ) and one of the group companies of Morgan…

M/S Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and revenue for Assessment Year 2002-03 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1760/BANG/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT (D.R)

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 92C

…ls) has struck down the CUP method adopted by the TPO as the MAM and instead directed the TPO to apply TNMM as the MAM in the case on hand, by quoting the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DIT (International Taxation) Vs. Morgan Stanley & Co. (292 ITR 416) (SC). Having applied TNMM as the MAM, the learned CIT (Appeals) applied the list of comparable companies adopted in the case of Sun Microsystems India P. Ltd.; for the same assessment year 2002-03. After selecting the same set of comparables as was taken in the aforesaid case (supra) to be the set of comparable companies to the assessee in the c…

DCIT (It) 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. B4U International Holdings Ltd

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1375/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 148Section 194HSection 40

…e its income is not taxable in India. Further, the Hon'ble ITAT also held that even otherwise the commission payments have been paid at ALP, no further taxability arises in India, as per the ruling of Supreme Court decision in case of Morgan Stanley & Co Inc. 292 ITR 416 (SC). The copy of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)'s orders are enclosed at Paper Book no 135 - 195. Also in the assessment order of AY 2005-06, similar issue was involved. On appeal the ld. CIT(A) while passing the order for AY 2005-06 has held that Appellant has PE in India. However, CIT(A) by relying on decision of Supreme Court in 'case o…

M/S Akzo Nobel India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata

In the result appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 531/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Singh & Shri Manoneet Dalal (AR)For Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92

…decisions, etc. To discuss the nature of stewardship services and how the services availed from Sika services fall under that category. The TPO has also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs Morgan Stanley and Company (2007) 292 ITR 416 (SC) to discuss the nature of stewardship services. To this extent, this judicial decision is relevant to the case of the asessee though the business model may be different. 1.4.6. Thus, the services provided by Akzo Nobel Paints (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd 1.4.7. From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the benefit out of intra group servi…

DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata vs. M/S Akzo Nobel India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 335/KOL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Singh & Shri Manoneet Dalal (AR)For Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92

…decisions, etc. To discuss the nature of stewardship services and how the services availed from Sika services fall under that category. The TPO has also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs Morgan Stanley and Company (2007) 292 ITR 416 (SC) to discuss the nature of stewardship services. To this extent, this judicial decision is relevant to the case of the asessee though the business model may be different. 1.4.6. Thus, the services provided by Akzo Nobel Paints (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd 1.4.7. From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the benefit out of intra group servi…

Netapp B.V., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with above direction

ITA 4781/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishinet App B.V. Ddit, Circle-2(1), Boeing Avenue-300, 111Pz, International Tax, New Delhi Vs. Schiphol, Rijk, The Netherlands Pan: Aadcn2178C (Appellant) (Respondent) Net App B.V. Dcit, C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp, Circle- 2(2), Vs. 6Th Floor, Hindustan Times Bldg, International Taxation, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-300, Pan: Aadcn2178C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT Int Taxation

Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 44D

…ving any fixed place of business shows that appellant does not have a permanent establishment in India in terms of article 5 (1) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. He relied on the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of Morgan Stanley & Co. inc 292 ITR 416 and of Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in case of DIT vs. E-Funds IT solutions. He further relied on the decision of Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in case of Adobe Systems Inc ( WPS 2384/2013 & CM 4515/2013) . He further stressed his argument by drawing support from OECD commentary on article 5 which suggest that carrying on of a business to a fixed place me…