DIT v. Set Satellite

218 CTR 452Reported decision#15382 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2020.

Judgments citing DIT v. Set Satellite

M/S. MITSUI & CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4377/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT
Section 44B

…sesse in India, the transactions between them being at arms length no further profit is attributable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. 292 ITR 416 (SC) and in the case of DCIT vs SET Satelite 218 CTR 452 (M) was rejected by the AO. 7. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) upheld the view of the AO that M/s. Mitsui & CO. Ltd. has been constituted as a Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment (DAPE) of the assessee company in India. He however restricted the profit attributable to the Indian 6 M/s. Mitsui & Co. Ltd. vs DDIT operation to 20% as against 50% attr…

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MITSUI AND CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 794/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT, DR
Section 44B

…he effect that transaction between the appellant and MIPL being at arms length no further profit is attributable in view of Supreme Court judgement in DIT vs. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., 292 ITR 416(SC) and Mumbai High Court judgement in DIT vs. Set Satellite, 218 CTR 452. 4. That on the facts and in law orders of AO / CIT(A) are bad in law and void ab- initio. The appellant prays for leave to add, alter and/or vary the ground(s) of appeal at any time during the pendency of the appeal or at the time of hearing” 63. So far as ground of appeal No.1 is concerned, we find the same is identical to ground of appeal No.…

M/S. MITSUI & CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4367/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT, DR
Section 44B

…he effect that transaction between the appellant and MIPL being at arms length no further profit is attributable in view of Supreme Court judgement in DIT vs. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., 292 ITR 416(SC) and Mumbai High Court judgement in DIT vs. Set Satellite, 218 CTR 452. 4. That on the facts and in law orders of AO / CIT(A) are bad in law and void ab- initio. The appellant prays for leave to add, alter and/or vary the ground(s) of appeal at any time during the pendency of the appeal or at the time of hearing” 63. So far as ground of appeal No.1 is concerned, we find the same is identical to ground of appeal No.…

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MITSUI & CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4329/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT, DR
Section 44B

…he effect that transaction between the appellant and MIPL being at arms length no further profit is attributable in view of Supreme Court judgement in DIT vs. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., 292 ITR 416(SC) and Mumbai High Court judgement in DIT vs. Set Satellite, 218 CTR 452. 4. That on the facts and in law orders of AO / CIT(A) are bad in law and void ab- initio. The appellant prays for leave to add, alter and/or vary the ground(s) of appeal at any time during the pendency of the appeal or at the time of hearing” 63. So far as ground of appeal No.1 is concerned, we find the same is identical to ground of appeal No.…

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MITSUI & CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2801/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT, DR
Section 44B

…he effect that transaction between the appellant and MIPL being at arms length no further profit is attributable in view of Supreme Court judgement in DIT vs. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., 292 ITR 416(SC) and Mumbai High Court judgement in DIT vs. Set Satellite, 218 CTR 452. 4. That on the facts and in law orders of AO / CIT(A) are bad in law and void ab- initio. The appellant prays for leave to add, alter and/or vary the ground(s) of appeal at any time during the pendency of the appeal or at the time of hearing” 63. So far as ground of appeal No.1 is concerned, we find the same is identical to ground of appeal No.…

NGC NETWORK ASIA LLC,MUMBAI vs. JDIT (IT) RG 4, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7631/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amit Shukla, (Jm) सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एवं अमित शुक्ऱा, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7994/Mum/2011 & Ita No.7631/Mum/2012 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) बनाम/ Ngc Network Asia Llc, Joint Director Of Income Tax C/O S R Batliboi & Co., (International Taxation), Vs. 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Range-4, Senapati Bapat Marg, Scindia House, Tulsi Pipe Road, Ballard Estate, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400038. Mumbai-400028 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan: Aabcn3136G अऩीरधथी ओय से / Appellant By Shri Porus Kaka & Ms.Sheetal Shah प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Rspondent By Ms.Vandana Sagar सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 4.9.2015 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (Am) These Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Orders Passed For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 In Pursuance Of Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp). Since Issues Urged In These Two Appeals Are Identical In Nature, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order, For The Sake Of Convenience.

Section 9(1)(vi)

…l, 2006, the assessee had paid commission @ 15% of advertisement revenues to NGC India. It was submitted that the rate of commission of 15% was considered to be at arm‟s length by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of SET Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd (218 CTR 452). Further, the TPO has accepted that the international transactions have been carried on at arms length price. Accordingly it was submitted by the assessee as under:- “To conclude, we would like to mention that NGC India is an agent of an independent status, it is acting in its ordinary course of business and its activities are not devoted wholly…

DIT v. Set Satellite (218 CTR 452) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax