Galileo International Inc. v. DCIT

116 ITD 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#2900 most cited

What is Galileo International Inc. v. DCIT authority for?

Income is chargeable to tax in India only to the extent it is reasonably attributable to operations carried out in India, especially when the amounts paid to associated enterprises are at arm's length.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Galileo International Inc. v. DCIT · section 9(1)(i) · business connection · tax treaty · Article 7 · income attribution · arm's length price · operations in India · permanent establishment · service PE

Also reported as

114 TTJ 289

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 145(3)

Issues it is cited on

agency pesection 9(1)(i)service peroyalty incomebusiness connectionsection 9(1)(vi)tax treatypermanent establishmentmost appropriate methodsection 9(1)arm's length pricesection 92c

Judgments citing Galileo International Inc. v. DCIT

The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar vs. Sh. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa, Amritsar

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

ITA 407/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…one which would render it otiose or sterile. The view taken by the High Court is repugnant to this cardinal canon of interpretation." In fact, the argument stands considered by the Special Bench of the tribunal in ITO v. Kenaram Saha and Subhash Saha [2008] 116 ITD 1 (Kol)(SB), paras 13.5 and 15 of which, containing the gist of the decision, are reproduced as under: ‘From the plain reading of s. 40A(3) itself it is evident that it would be applicable where the assessee incurs any expenditure exceeding Rs. 20,000 otherwise than by a crossed cheque or by a crossed bank draft. In such circumstances, 20 per cent of…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Srinagar vs. M/S. J&K Project Construction, Srinagar

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 176/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…013, dated 28/2/2014); Asst. CIT v. Darshan Kumar Mahajan (in ITA No. 566/Asr/2016, dated 18.04.2018); ITO v. Rehmat Traders (in ITA No. 545/Asr/2016, dated 01/6/2018). In fact, the special bench of the tribunal has in ITO v. Kenaram Saha & Subash Saha [2008] 116 ITD 1 (Kol)(SB) relied on a number of decisions by the Hon’ble High Courts across the country to hold that only where the assessee’s case falls under any one of the specified circumstances enumerated u/r. 6DD, would the saving from the rigor of the provision hold; there being no ambiguity in the express (AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) Jammu and Kashmir Project…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Srinagar vs. M/S. J&K Project Construction, Srinagar

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 175/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…013, dated 28/2/2014); Asst. CIT v. Darshan Kumar Mahajan (in ITA No. 566/Asr/2016, dated 18.04.2018); ITO v. Rehmat Traders (in ITA No. 545/Asr/2016, dated 01/6/2018). In fact, the special bench of the tribunal has in ITO v. Kenaram Saha & Subash Saha [2008] 116 ITD 1 (Kol)(SB) relied on a number of decisions by the Hon’ble High Courts across the country to hold that only where the assessee’s case falls under any one of the specified circumstances enumerated u/r. 6DD, would the saving from the rigor of the provision hold; there being no ambiguity in the express (AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) Jammu and Kashmir Project…

M/S. Jammu & Kashmir Projects Construction, Jammu vs. The Assessing Officer, Srinagar

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 101/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…013, dated 28/2/2014); Asst. CIT v. Darshan Kumar Mahajan (in ITA No. 566/Asr/2016, dated 18.04.2018); ITO v. Rehmat Traders (in ITA No. 545/Asr/2016, dated 01/6/2018). In fact, the special bench of the tribunal has in ITO v. Kenaram Saha & Subash Saha [2008] 116 ITD 1 (Kol)(SB) relied on a number of decisions by the Hon’ble High Courts across the country to hold that only where the assessee’s case falls under any one of the specified circumstances enumerated u/r. 6DD, would the saving from the rigor of the provision hold; there being no ambiguity in the express (AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) Jammu and Kashmir Project…

M/S. Jammu & Kashmir Projects Construction, Jammu & Kashmir vs. The Assessing Officer, Srinagar

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 100/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…013, dated 28/2/2014); Asst. CIT v. Darshan Kumar Mahajan (in ITA No. 566/Asr/2016, dated 18.04.2018); ITO v. Rehmat Traders (in ITA No. 545/Asr/2016, dated 01/6/2018). In fact, the special bench of the tribunal has in ITO v. Kenaram Saha & Subash Saha [2008] 116 ITD 1 (Kol)(SB) relied on a number of decisions by the Hon’ble High Courts across the country to hold that only where the assessee’s case falls under any one of the specified circumstances enumerated u/r. 6DD, would the saving from the rigor of the provision hold; there being no ambiguity in the express (AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) Jammu and Kashmir Project…

The Income Tax Officer, Ferozepur vs. M/S Rehmat Traders, Ferozepur Cantt

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 454/ASR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 454/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Goyal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 454/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer Vs. M/s. Rehmat Traders, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur 159-P, Khalsa Gurdwara Street, Ferozepur Cantt. [PAN: AALFR 2409M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ajay Goyal, CIT-DR Respondent by: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Date of Hearing: 12.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 01.06.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Revenue directed against the Order by the Commissioner of In…

Sh. Basant Kumar, Fazilka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 514/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 514/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 514/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Basant Kumar, Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Prop. Basant Petro Centre, Circle-II, Bathinda. Vill- Gumjal, Distt. Fazilka [PAN: ABLPK 5995L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 22.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 25.05.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commis…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu vs. Sh. Darshan Kumar Mahajan, Pathankot

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 566/ASR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 566(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pan: Adjpm7623B

For Appellant: Sh. A. N. Mishra (D. R.)For Respondent: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 40A(3)

…s, a consideration / factor sought to be introduced. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ITO v. Kenaram Saha & Subash Saha [2008] 8 ITA No.566 (Asr)/2016(AY 2013-14) Asst. CIT v Darshan Kumar Mahajan 116 ITD 1 (Kol)(SB), paras 13.3 & 15 of which containing the gist of the decision, we reproduce as under for ready reference: ‘From the plain reading of s. 40A(3) itself it is evident that it would be applicable where the assessee incurs any expenditure exceeding Rs. 20,000 otherwise than by a crossed cheque or by a crossed bank draft. In such circumstances,…

Subhash Pareta, Kota vs. ACIT, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

ITA 434/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.L.Chandel (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 142Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 69C

…ction 40A(3) is also taken into account and there cannot be a separate disallowance under 40A(3) of the Act. 27. Further, we also refer to the Special Bench of Tribunal in case of Income-tax Officer, Ward-I, Murshidabad vs. Kenaram Saha & Subhash Saha [2009] 116 ITD 1 (Kolkata) (SB) has held as under: “24. Now coming to departmental appeal in the case of Sri Shyamal Kr. Dey (supra), the Assessing Officer has determined the income by applying a net profit rate of the turnover. The Assessing Officer in addition to the determination of net profit as a percentage of turnover, made further disallowance under section…

Smt. Urmi Shit vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed”

ITA 145/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 145/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Urmi Shit -Vs- Ito Ward-1(4), Asansol [Pan: Bkyps1389B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.N. Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yadav, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 145/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Urmi Shit -vs- ITO Ward-1(4), Asansol [PAN: BKYPS1389B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri R.N. Ram, AR For the Respondent : Shri Sallong Yadav, Addl. CIT DR Date of Hearing : 01.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 04.08.2017 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata [ in short the ld CITA] in Appeal No. 23/CIT(A)/Asl/W…

Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 456/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla,Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja,Am

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)

…, he strongly relied upon the said decisions:- (i) Morgan Stanely & Co. 292 (SC) ITR 416, 162Taxman 165 (ii) Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd. (Bom) 173 Taxman 475 (iii) B4U International Holdings Ltd. (Bom) 57 taxmann.com 146 (iv) Galileo International Inc. 116 ITD 1 (Delhi/ 19 SOT 257(Delhi. 6. As regards the disallowance u/s 40(a) (i) of „programming cost‟ paid to various non-residents and payment made to “PanAMSat” and various other non-residents, he submitted that the same is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee‟s own case in the assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 in ITA No.4678…

Addl DIT RG 2, Mumbai vs. Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 391/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla,Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja,Am

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)

…, he strongly relied upon the said decisions:- (i) Morgan Stanely & Co. 292 (SC) ITR 416, 162Taxman 165 (ii) Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd. (Bom) 173 Taxman 475 (iii) B4U International Holdings Ltd. (Bom) 57 taxmann.com 146 (iv) Galileo International Inc. 116 ITD 1 (Delhi/ 19 SOT 257(Delhi. 6. As regards the disallowance u/s 40(a) (i) of „programming cost‟ paid to various non-residents and payment made to “PanAMSat” and various other non-residents, he submitted that the same is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee‟s own case in the assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 in ITA No.4678…

ADIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2073/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla,Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja,Am

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)

…, he strongly relied upon the said decisions:- (i) Morgan Stanely & Co. 292 (SC) ITR 416, 162Taxman 165 (ii) Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd. (Bom) 173 Taxman 475 (iii) B4U International Holdings Ltd. (Bom) 57 taxmann.com 146 (iv) Galileo International Inc. 116 ITD 1 (Delhi/ 19 SOT 257(Delhi. 6. As regards the disallowance u/s 40(a) (i) of „programming cost‟ paid to various non-residents and payment made to “PanAMSat” and various other non-residents, he submitted that the same is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee‟s own case in the assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 in ITA No.4678…

Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT RG 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2065/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla,Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja,Am

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)

…, he strongly relied upon the said decisions:- (i) Morgan Stanely & Co. 292 (SC) ITR 416, 162Taxman 165 (ii) Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd. (Bom) 173 Taxman 475 (iii) B4U International Holdings Ltd. (Bom) 57 taxmann.com 146 (iv) Galileo International Inc. 116 ITD 1 (Delhi/ 19 SOT 257(Delhi. 6. As regards the disallowance u/s 40(a) (i) of „programming cost‟ paid to various non-residents and payment made to “PanAMSat” and various other non-residents, he submitted that the same is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee‟s own case in the assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 in ITA No.4678…

Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 9079/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla,Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja,Am

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)

…, he strongly relied upon the said decisions:- (i) Morgan Stanely & Co. 292 (SC) ITR 416, 162Taxman 165 (ii) Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd. (Bom) 173 Taxman 475 (iii) B4U International Holdings Ltd. (Bom) 57 taxmann.com 146 (iv) Galileo International Inc. 116 ITD 1 (Delhi/ 19 SOT 257(Delhi. 6. As regards the disallowance u/s 40(a) (i) of „programming cost‟ paid to various non-residents and payment made to “PanAMSat” and various other non-residents, he submitted that the same is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee‟s own case in the assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 in ITA No.4678…

Smt. Urmi Shit, Burdwan vs. ITO, WD- 1(4), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 176/KOL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)Section 4O

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before : Shri M.Balaganesh, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 176/KOL/2014 A.Y: 2008-09 Smt Urmit Shit Vs. Income-tax Officer PAN:BKYPS1389B Ward 1(4),Asansol (Appellant) (Respondent) Appearances by: Shri R.N.Ram, ld. AR for the Assessee Md.Ghyas uddin, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue Date of hearing : 17-11-2016 Date of pronouncement : 25-11-2016 O R D E R Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM :- This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 25-11-2013 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(App…

Income Tax Officer-Ward-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Standard Leather Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2620/KOL/2013[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…f CIT v Interseas (2010) 233 CTR (Ker) 77 has held that payment made for purchase of hides and skins is covered by Rule 6DD hence no disallowance can be made by applying provision of section 40A(3) of the Act. v) In ITO v. Kenaram N.Saha & Subhash Saha [2009] 116 ITD 1 (Kol- Trib.)(SB) it was held that the payment for purchase of hides and skins would be covered by sub-clause (ii) of clause (f) of rule 6DD [now rules 6DD(e)] being the producer of animal husbandry. However, as per clause (f), not only the payment should be made for purchase of produce of animal husbandry but payment is to be made to the producer o…

ACIT Circle 40 (1) vs. Ranjeet Singh

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 419/DEL/2007[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit/Ito, Vs. Inter Globe Technology Quoteint Pvt. Ltd. Circle-11(1), Ground Floor 124, Central Wing, New Delhi. Thapar House, Janpath, New Delhi. (Pan: Aabci3241H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shriajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Rupesh Jain & Aditya Vohra, Adv. Department By: Shri Vijay Verma, Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09 .05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 :07.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Revenue Has Questioned First Appellate Order In All The Above Appeals Solely On The Ground That The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition (Of Rs.27,83,45,741 In Assessment Year 2007-08, Rs.90,53,50,969 In Assessment Year 2008-09, Rs. 70,35,36,948 In Assessment Year 2009-10 & Rs.98,56,91,361 In Assessment Year 2010-11) Made On Account Of Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Sec. 10Aa Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2 2. Heard & Considered The Arguments Advanced By The Parties In View Of Orders Of The Authorities Below, Material Available On Record & The Decisions Relied Upon.

For Appellant: S/ShriAjay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Rupesh JainFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Verma, CIT( DR)
Section 10A

…He also placed reliance on the following decisions while referring relevant extract of the Special Economy Zone Act 2005 and the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 made available at page Nos. 1 to 21 of the paper book: i) Galileo International Inc. vs. DCIT – 116 ITD 1 (Del); ii) DIT vs. Galileo International Inc. – 336 ITR 264 (Del.); iii) Travelport L.P. USA vs. DDIT – ITA No. 6326, 6327, 1342/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) – order dated 23.11.2015; iv) Acquire Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service-tax, Delhi – 48 Taxman.com 269; v ) DCIT vs. Goenka Diamond & Jewellers Ltd. – 146 TTJ 68 (Jai…

Director of Income Tax vs. Bbc Worldwide Ltd

ITA/1341/2010HC Delhi30 Sept 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 92C

…R 205 (Bom.) holding that the payment of service fee @ 15% of the gross advertisement revenue to its agent represented the price computed on the ALP principle. The judgment of this Court in the case of DIT Vs. Galileo International Incorporation, 114 TTJ 289 (Del) was also referred. It was submitted that in Galileo International Incorporation ITA Nos.1341/2010, 703/2010, 705/2010 Page 7 of 20 (supra), this Court had referred to the CBDT‘s Circular No.742 dated 02.5.1996 wherein it was recognised that the advertising agent of the foreign telecasting companies in India usually r…

CIT vs. Bbc Worldwide Ltd

ITA - 705 / 2011HC Delhi30 Sept 2011
Section 92C

…vt. Ltd. Vs. DDIT, 307 ITR 205 (Bom.) holding that the payment of service fee @ 15% of the gross advertisement revenue to its agent represented the price computed on the ALP principle. The judgment of this Court International Galileo Vs. of DIT Incorporation, 114 TTJ 289 (Del) was also referred. It was submitted that in Galileo International Incorporation ![](_page_6_Picture_1.jpeg) (supra), this Court had referred to the CBDT's Circular No.742 dated 02.5.1996 wherein it was recognised that the advertising agent of the foreign telecasting companies in India usually retains service charges @ 15% or so of the gro…