JCIT v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft

34 SOT 16Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#12975 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)Section 144Section 1962Section 2(31)Section 234A

Issues it is cited on

section 44bbbsection 9(1)(i)permanent establishmentsection 9(1)section 144c(13)liable to taxfinal assessment ordernon-residentsection 144cdraft assessment ordersection 19transfer

Judgments citing JCIT v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft

SCHINDLER CHINA ELEVATOR COMPANY LIMITED,CHINA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INT TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 4661/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanschindler China Elevator Vs. The Assistant Company Limited Commissioner Of Income C/O. Bansi S. Mehta & Co. Merchant Tax, Int Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Chamber, 3Rd Floor, 41, New Marine Mumbai Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Room No. 1708, 17Th Floor, Air Pan: Aascs8166L India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 2(31)Section 9(1)(i)

…d in India on the basis that the sale is completed in India. We find that in a case, wherein the assessee made an offshore supply of equipment on a CIF basis at an Indian port, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in JCIT vs Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, [2009] 34 SOT 16 (Mumbai) observed as under: “12. From the above clause of the contract it is patent that BPL acquired the absolute right in the property when it was delivered to the carrier at the port of shipment i.e., in Schindler China Elevator Company Limited; A.Y. 2016-17 Germany. The reference of the learned D.R. to the invoice for depicting that it was on C…

JIANGSU ZHONGTIAN TECHNOLOGY CO LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 350/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234A

…al issue, the coordinate Bench has held as under: 13........We find that in a case, wherein the assessee made an offshore supply of equipment on a CIF basis at an Indian port, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in JCIT vs Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, [2009] 34 SOT 16 (Mumbai) observed as under: “12. From the above clause of the contract it is patent that BPL acquired the absolute right in the property when it was delivered to the carrier at the port of shipment i.e., in Germany. The reference of the learned D.R. to the invoice for depicting that it was on CIF basis at Bombay and hence the right of the buyer in…

SCHINDLER CHINA ELEVATOR COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INT TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3355/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh, Schindler China Elevator Vs. The Assistant Company Limited Commissioner Of Income C/O Bansi S. Mehta & Co., Tax, Int. Tax, Circle Merchant Chamber, 3Rd 4(2)(1), Room No. 1708, Floor, 41, New Marin 17Th Floor, Air India Lines, Mumbai – 400020 Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aascs8166L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Anil Sant
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)

…d in India on the basis that the sale is completed in India. We find that in a case, wherein the assessee made an offshore supply of equipment on a CIF basis at an Indian port, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in JCIT vs Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, [2009] 34 SOT 16 (Mumbai) observed as under: “12. From the above clause of the contract it is patent that BPL acquired the absolute right in the property when it was delivered to the carrier at the port of shipment i.e., in Germany. The reference of the learned D.R. P a g e | 8 Schindler China Elevator Company Ltd. Vs. The ACIT, IT, Circle 4(2)(1) to the invoice f…

JIANGDONG FITTINGS EQUIPMENTS CO. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 349/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediajiangdong Fittings Vs. Acit Equipments Co. Ltd. Circle Int. Tax – 2(1)(2) C/O. Unit No.309 B, C, D, 3Rd New Delhi Floor, Magnum Tower I, Sector-58, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 011 Pan No. Aadcj 6890 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kamal Sawhney, Shri Arun Bhadoriya & Shri Puru Medheria, Advs. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.03.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 4

…al issue, the coordinate Bench has held as under: 13........We find that in a case, wherein the assessee made an offshore supply of equipment on a CIF basis at an Indian port, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in JCIT vs Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, [2009] 34 SOT 16 (Mumbai) observed as under: “12. From the above clause of the contract it is patent that BPL acquired the absolute right in the property when it was delivered to the carrier at the port of shipment i.e., in Germany. The reference of the learned D.R. to the invoice for depicting that it was on CIF basis at Bombay and hence the right of the buyer in…

JIANGDONG FITTINGS EQUIPMENTS CO. LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 2291/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Ita Nos. 2290 & 2291/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Jiangdong Fittings Equipments Versus Acit, Circle 2(1)(2), Co., Unit No. 309, B.C.D. 3Rd International Taxation, Floor, Magnum Tower I, Sector New Delhi. 58, Gurgaon. Pan:Aadcj6890K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Advocate & Sh. Nishank Vashistha, Advocate Revenue By : Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2023 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…l issue, the coordinate Bench has held as under : 13........We find that in a case, wherein the assessee made an offshore supply of equipment on a CIF basis at an Indian port, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in JCIT vs Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, [2009] 34 SOT 16 (Mumbai) observed as under: “12. From the above clause of the contract it is patent that BPL acquired the absolute right in the property when it was delivered to the carrier at the port of shipment i.e., in Germany. The reference of the learned D.R. to the invoice for depicting that it was on CIF basis at Bombay and hence the right of the buyer in…

JIANGDONG FITTINGS EQUIPMENTS CO.,GURGOAN vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 2290/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Ita Nos. 2290 & 2291/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Jiangdong Fittings Equipments Versus Acit, Circle 2(1)(2), Co., Unit No. 309, B.C.D. 3Rd International Taxation, Floor, Magnum Tower I, Sector New Delhi. 58, Gurgaon. Pan:Aadcj6890K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Advocate & Sh. Nishank Vashistha, Advocate Revenue By : Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2023 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…l issue, the coordinate Bench has held as under : 13........We find that in a case, wherein the assessee made an offshore supply of equipment on a CIF basis at an Indian port, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in JCIT vs Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, [2009] 34 SOT 16 (Mumbai) observed as under: “12. From the above clause of the contract it is patent that BPL acquired the absolute right in the property when it was delivered to the carrier at the port of shipment i.e., in Germany. The reference of the learned D.R. to the invoice for depicting that it was on CIF basis at Bombay and hence the right of the buyer in…

SCHINDLER CHINA ELEVATOR COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX (INT. TAX)-CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2483/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)

…d in India on the basis that the sale is completed in India. We find that in a case, wherein the assessee made an offshore supply of equipment on a CIF basis at an Indian port, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in JCIT vs Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, [2009] 34 SOT 16 (Mumbai) observed as under: “12. From the above clause of the contract it is patent that BPL acquired the absolute right in the property when it was delivered to the carrier at the port of shipment i.e., in Germany. The reference of the learned D.R. to the invoice for depicting that it was on CIF basis at Bombay and hence the right of the buyer in…

SCHINDLER CHINA ELEVATOR COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX (INT. TAX)-CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1679/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)

…d in India on the basis that the sale is completed in India. We find that in a case, wherein the assessee made an offshore supply of equipment on a CIF basis at an Indian port, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in JCIT vs Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, [2009] 34 SOT 16 (Mumbai) observed as under: “12. From the above clause of the contract it is patent that BPL acquired the absolute right in the property when it was delivered to the carrier at the port of shipment i.e., in Germany. The reference of the learned D.R. to the invoice for depicting that it was on CIF basis at Bombay and hence the right of the buyer in…