What is Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division v. DDIT authority for?

When contractual obligations are for an entire project, only the income reasonably attributable to operations carried on in India is deemed to accrue or arise in India and falls within the tax net. This principle applies even in consortium arrangements where members have broader contractual roles, and income from supply of equipment should be characterized appropriately.

How many judgments cite Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division v. DDIT?

55 judgments on BharatTax cite Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division v. DDIT (365 ITR 1), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division v. DDIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 234B, Section 9(1)(vii), Section 115A, Section 144C(13), Section 209(1)(d).

Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division v. DDIT (365 ITR 1)

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

ITA 173/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Mrs. Apeksha Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 142Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 253(5)Section 292BSection 5

…has already paid taxes, then treating the deductor as an assessee-\nin-default is unjustified.\nMoreover, the impugned order suffers from a gross violation of the principles of natural\njustice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (2015) 365 ITR 1\n(SC) held that the principles of natural justice must be strictly adhered to in assessment\nproceedings, and any violation renders the proceedings void. The Ld. AO not only failed\nto issue notice to the employees but also did not provide the appellant with a fair\nopportunity to explain its position before passing the order. The Hon'ble Bombay Hi…

SMS CONCAST AG,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5414/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…ct and for a separate consideration, nevertheless, the character of the receipt must be that of sale price for the supply of equipment. In support of such contentions, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: 1. Linde Engineering Division Vs. DIT, 365 ITR 1 (Delhi HC) 2. CIT Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., 243 ITR 459 (Madras HC) 3. CIT Vs. Mitsui Engineering and Ship Building 259 ITR 248 (Madras HC) 4. CIT Vs. Klayman Porcelains Ltd. 229 ITR 735 (AP HC) 5. DIT International Tax Vs. Nissho IWAI Corporation (ITA No.612 of 2013) 6. Quotech GmbHH Vs. DCIT, 58 taxmann.com 232 9. He submitted, the de…

M.M.CONSTRUCTION,MORADABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), MORADABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 729/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 729/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M. M. Construction, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-81, Ashiyana Colony, Kanth Ward-1(1), Road, Moradabad-244001 Moradabad-244001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaifm1910H Assessee By : Sh. Akash Ojha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A), Moradabad Dated 24.09.2019 In Appeal No. 134/Ito-1(1)/Mbd/2017-18 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Akash Ojha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…ceedings. The Revenue’s only case in these facts and circumstances is that the relevant conditions in Rule 6DD(k) have not been fulfilled so as to satisfy the rigor of impugned statutory provision. We find that the case of CIT Vs. Anupam Tele Services Vs. ITO 361 ITR 1 (Gujarat) has settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department that overwhelming genuine payments made in cash have nowhere been sought to be disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. Their lordships further conclude that Rules 6DD of the Income Tax Rules is not a self-exhaustive provision wherein the assessee could very well plead and pro…

GE HYDRO FRANCE,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1881/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2020-21] Ge Hydro France, Deputy Commissioner Of Income A-18, 1St Floor, Okhla Tax, Industrial, Phase-Ii, Vs Circle International Tax-1(3)(1), Tehkhand, South East Delhi, Civic Centre, Okhla Industrial Estate S.O. New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aafca1688N Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv. & Shri Arpit Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr & Ms.Sabiha Rizvi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.11.2024

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 44B

…ndent contractors being consortium members, responsible for undertaking onshore work under separate and independent contracts with THDC. We find that the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division vs DDIT reported in 365 ITR 1 (Del) had held that that the fact that contractual obligations of one of the consortium members were not limited merely supplying equipment, but were for performance of the entire contract, would not necessarily imply that entire income relatable to the contract could be deemed to accrue or arise in India; only that portion of income which is reaso…

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2153/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI B R BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 9(1)(vi)

…ions have been fulfilled in the present case therefore, no AoP has come into existence. He submitted that now this issue stands squarely covered by the decision of the Linde AG, Linde Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Engineering Division vs DDIT [2014] 365 ITR 1 (Delhi), wherein, the High Court has discussed this issue in paragraphs 25 to 70 held that under these circumstances no AOP was constituted. He submitted that it is admitted by the AO in the assessment order that the facts in the present case are similar to that of Linde AG as he has extensively relied upon the order of Linde AG by the AAR which no…

UK GRID SOLUTIONS LIMITED,UNITED KINGDOM vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 885/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…ainst offshore supply of equipments cannot be taxed by virtue of section 44BBB. 9.8 As with regard to the submission that the agreements were not deliberately split for tax avoidance, Ld. Sr. Counsel relied Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division vs DDIT: [2014] 365 ITR 1 (Del) where the Department's SLP dismissed in 242 Taxman 371 (SC). He also relied DIT vs Ericsson AB: 343 ITR 470 (Del). 9.8.1 In support of the submission that there is no business connection of assessee in India, Ld. Sr. Counsel relied, CIT vs. R D Aggarwal and Co. [1965] 56 ITR 20 (SC), CIT vs Hindustan Shipyard Ltd: 109 ITR 158 (AP) and CIT vs…

UK GRID SOLUTIONS LIMITED,UNITED KINGDOM vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 884/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…ainst offshore supply of equipments cannot be taxed by virtue of section 44BBB. 9.8 As with regard to the submission that the agreements were not deliberately split for tax avoidance, Ld. Sr. Counsel relied Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division vs DDIT: [2014] 365 ITR 1 (Del) where the Department's SLP dismissed in 242 Taxman 371 (SC). He also relied DIT vs Ericsson AB: 343 ITR 470 (Del). 9.8.1 In support of the submission that there is no business connection of assessee in India, Ld. Sr. Counsel relied, CIT vs. R D Aggarwal and Co. [1965] 56 ITR 20 (SC), CIT vs Hindustan Shipyard Ltd: 109 ITR 158 (AP) and CIT vs…

UK GRID SOLUTIONS LIMITED ,UNITED KINGDOM vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION 3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2240/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…ainst offshore supply of equipments cannot be taxed by virtue of section 44BBB. 9.8 As with regard to the submission that the agreements were not deliberately split for tax avoidance, Ld. Sr. Counsel relied Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division vs DDIT: [2014] 365 ITR 1 (Del) where the Department's SLP dismissed in 242 Taxman 371 (SC). He also relied DIT vs Ericsson AB: 343 ITR 470 (Del). 9.8.1 In support of the submission that there is no business connection of assessee in India, Ld. Sr. Counsel relied, CIT vs. R D Aggarwal and Co. [1965] 56 ITR 20 (SC), CIT vs Hindustan Shipyard Ltd: 109 ITR 158 (AP) and CIT vs…

UK GRID SOLUTIONS LIMITED ,UNITED KINGDOM vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION 3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2239/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…ainst offshore supply of equipments cannot be taxed by virtue of section 44BBB. 9.8 As with regard to the submission that the agreements were not deliberately split for tax avoidance, Ld. Sr. Counsel relied Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division vs DDIT: [2014] 365 ITR 1 (Del) where the Department's SLP dismissed in 242 Taxman 371 (SC). He also relied DIT vs Ericsson AB: 343 ITR 470 (Del). 9.8.1 In support of the submission that there is no business connection of assessee in India, Ld. Sr. Counsel relied, CIT vs. R D Aggarwal and Co. [1965] 56 ITR 20 (SC), CIT vs Hindustan Shipyard Ltd: 109 ITR 158 (AP) and CIT vs…

GE HYDRO FRANCE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2086/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 44B

…ndent contractors being consortium members, responsible for undertaking onshore work under separate and independent contracts with THDC. We find that the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division vs DDIT reported in 365 ITR 1 (Del) had held that that the fact that contractual obligations of one of the consortium members were not limited merely supplying equipment, but were for performance of the entire contract, would not necessarily imply that entire income relatable to the contract could be deemed to accrue or arise in India; only that portion of income which is reaso…

GE HYDRO FRANCE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2085/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 44B

…ndent contractors being consortium members, responsible for undertaking onshore work under separate and independent contracts with THDC. We find that the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division vs DDIT reported in 365 ITR 1 (Del) had held that that the fact that contractual obligations of one of the consortium members were not limited merely supplying equipment, but were for performance of the entire contract, would not necessarily imply that entire income relatable to the contract could be deemed to accrue or arise in India; only that portion of income which is reaso…