Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

91 ITD 133Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2004#7254 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)Section 10ASection 10AASection 115JBSection 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Issues it is cited on

section 9(1)(vii)(b)depreciation on softwaremake available clausesection 10(35)fees for included servicescopyrighted articlesection 40a(ia)disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)section 70withholding taxsection 80hhcsection 9(1)(vii)

Judgments citing Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

HAL OFFSHORE LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2084/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 133(6)Section 201Section 201(1)

…ifically fell under Article 7, leading to commercial profits. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee relying on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lufthansa Cargo Hal Offshore Ltd. vs. ITO India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in (2004) 91 ITD 133 dated 30/06/2004 and the order of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka55 STC 314 and other judicial precedents, thusand sought for allowing the Appeal. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the services rendered by the vendor is technical in nature and made available to the…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1262/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 096. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai - 600 096. Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

For Respondent: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

…-tax (OSD) vs Aspire Systems India (P.) Ltd [2023] 157 taxmann.com 699 (Chennai ITAT) reference in this regard is made to Page No. 381 (Para No. 12) of the case law paper book O Titan Industries v ITO (11 SOT 206 Bang.) O Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd v DCIT (91 ITD 133 Del.) O ITO v Bajaj Hindustan Ltd (47 SOT 74 Mum. (URO)) • Ajappa Integrated Project Management Consultants P. Ltd vs. ACIT (33 CCH 207 Chen) O Mahindra Holidays & Resorts (97 DTR (Chennai Trib) 393) • Aqua Omega Services P Ltd v ACIT (23 ITR Trib 191 Chen) - In respect of those payments made to residents of Singapore, USA and UK, the tax treaties…

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, CHENNAI

ITA 1207/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

…- 18 - ITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207, 1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024 699 (Chennai ITAT) reference in this regard is made to Page No. 381 (Para No. 12) of the case law paper book o Titan Industries v ITO (11 SOT 206 Bang.) o Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd v DCIT (91 ITD 133 Del.) o ITO v Bajaj Hindustan Ltd (47 SOT 74 Mum. (URO)) o Ajappa Integrated Project Management Consultants P. Ltd vs. ACIT (33 CCH 207 Chen) o Mahindra Holidays & Resorts (97 DTR (Chennai Trib) 393) o Aqua Omega Services P Ltd v ACIT (23 ITR Trib 191 Chen) - In respect of those payments made to residents of Singapore, USA and UK, the tax treaties…

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, CHENNAI

ITA 1193/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

…- 18 - ITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207, 1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024 699 (Chennai ITAT) reference in this regard is made to Page No. 381 (Para No. 12) of the case law paper book o Titan Industries v ITO (11 SOT 206 Bang.) o Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd v DCIT (91 ITD 133 Del.) o ITO v Bajaj Hindustan Ltd (47 SOT 74 Mum. (URO)) o Ajappa Integrated Project Management Consultants P. Ltd vs. ACIT (33 CCH 207 Chen) o Mahindra Holidays & Resorts (97 DTR (Chennai Trib) 393) o Aqua Omega Services P Ltd v ACIT (23 ITR Trib 191 Chen) - In respect of those payments made to residents of Singapore, USA and UK, the tax treaties…

CARGILL INTERNATIONAL TRADING PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2358/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(i)

…to where the activities, with respect to those transactions, take place. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judicial precedents: • Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd V DCIT (2011) 197 Taxmann 263 (Delhi) • Luftansa Cargo India (P) Ltd 91 ITD 133 (Del ITAT); • Havells India (2013) 352 ITR 376 (Del HC); 17. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer. The ld DR submitted that the transaction are speculative as no actual goods have been delivered. It is argued that the assessee is trading in commodities and the “washout” charges would fall under ‘other income’ un…

M/S ORKLA ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/O Mtr Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (It), 100 Feet Inner Ring Road, Asmnt, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Aabco4087B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 17/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143 (3) By The Ld.Dcit, Asmnt, Circle-2(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. Barred By Limitation The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao') Is Barred By Limitation In View Of The Express Provisions Of Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Wherein, The Order Should Be Passed Within One Month From The End Of The Month In Which Dispute

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate
Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

…n of ld.AR is that, all the services were rendered by the non-resident assesee outside India and therefore the statutory provisions under the Act cannot be attracted. Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Lufthansa Cargo India Pvt.Ltd., vs DCIT reported in (2004) 91 ITD 133, while deciding a similar issue held that income can be said to have been earned from a source of income outside India if source from which income is derived is situated outside India and in context of an international transaction source can be said to be outside India if- (i). It is a non-resident, or (ii), or (iii) activity yielding income takes…

M/S AD2PRO MEDIA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the 14 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 490/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Shri P.K.Gadale(Ita Nos.490 To 503(Bang)/2019) (Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S Ad2Pro Media Solutions Pvt.Ltd., No.10, 2Nd Floor, Bannerghatta Road, J.P.Nagar-Iii Phase, Bangalore-560078 Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle-1(1), Bmtc Building, Koramangala, Bangalore-560095 Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Vandana Sagar, CIT-DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9

…deemed to accrue or arise in India and accordingly, not taxable. 4.24 Reliance is placed on the following decisions namely: (i) Kunwar TrivikramNarain Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1965) 57 ITR 29 (SC); (ii) Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2004) 91 ITD 133 (Delhi); ITA Nos.490-503(Bang)/2019 21 (iii) IBM World Trade Corpn. v. DDIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 728 (Bangalore - Trib.); (iv) Infosys Technologies Ltd., In re [2012] 210 Taxman 295 (AA R) 4.25 It is further submitted that, the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of 2012 (5) TMI 58 - ITAT BANGALORE - IBM World Trade Corporation Versus Deputy…

ACIT 27(3), NAVI MUMBAI vs. RAMESH P. SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2012-2013

ITA 974/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The A.C.I.T. 27(3), Shri Ramesh P. Singh, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Prop. Of M/S Aditya Investment Vashi Railway Station Complex & Exim Trade (Co.), Vashi, Vs. Plot No. 23, Pallvi Building, Navi Mumbai Maneklal Estate, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai - 400086 Pan: Aagps2739C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 5(2)(b)Section 7Section 9(1)(i)

…not accrue in India if it is for the purpose of making or earning any income from any source outside India. Hon’ble Tribunals in CIT vs. KKK West Germany (262 ITR 513 (Mad)., Titan Industries vs. ITO (11 SOT 206 (Bang.) and Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd. DCIT 91 ITD 133 (Del.) have taken a stand that as the fees are paid to non-residents for the purpose of procuring export orders outside India, it is for the purpose of earning from a source outside India. Therefore, the fact is even if the commission is considered as Royalty or fees for technical Services, it does not accrue in India. 7.7 It is further observed…

POOMPUHAR SHIPPING CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI

Accordingly, related grounds of the assessee for assessment years 2010-2011 and 2013-2014 are dismissed

ITA 335/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.333, 334 & 335/Chny/2018 & S.P.Nos.61, 62, 63/Chny/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15. M/S. Poompuhar Shipping Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation Limited, Income Tax, 692, Annasalai, Corporate Circle 5(2) Nandanam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 035. [Pan Aaacp 4383J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, IRS, CIT
Section 40Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए‘ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.333, 334 & 335/CHNY/2018 & S.P.Nos.61, 62, 63/CHNY/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15. M/s. Poompuhar Shipping Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Corporation Limited, Income Tax, 692, Annasalai, Corporate Circle 5(2) Nandanam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 035. [PAN AAACP 4383J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""…

POOMPUHAR SHIPPING CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI

Accordingly, related grounds of the assessee for assessment years 2010-2011 and 2013-2014 are dismissed

ITA 334/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.333, 334 & 335/Chny/2018 & S.P.Nos.61, 62, 63/Chny/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15. M/S. Poompuhar Shipping Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation Limited, Income Tax, 692, Annasalai, Corporate Circle 5(2) Nandanam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 035. [Pan Aaacp 4383J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, IRS, CIT
Section 40Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए‘ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.333, 334 & 335/CHNY/2018 & S.P.Nos.61, 62, 63/CHNY/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15. M/s. Poompuhar Shipping Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Corporation Limited, Income Tax, 692, Annasalai, Corporate Circle 5(2) Nandanam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 035. [PAN AAACP 4383J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""…

POOMPUHAR SHIPPING CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI

Accordingly, related grounds of the assessee for assessment years 2010-2011 and 2013-2014 are dismissed

ITA 333/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.333, 334 & 335/Chny/2018 & S.P.Nos.61, 62, 63/Chny/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15. M/S. Poompuhar Shipping Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation Limited, Income Tax, 692, Annasalai, Corporate Circle 5(2) Nandanam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 035. [Pan Aaacp 4383J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, IRS, CIT
Section 40Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए‘ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.333, 334 & 335/CHNY/2018 & S.P.Nos.61, 62, 63/CHNY/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15. M/s. Poompuhar Shipping Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Corporation Limited, Income Tax, 692, Annasalai, Corporate Circle 5(2) Nandanam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 035. [PAN AAACP 4383J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HCL COMNET LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 6142/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…by Gillette Israel to the assessee. Therefore the payment did not fall within the provisions of Explanation to section 9(1)(vii) . 5.8. In this regard reliance was placed on the order of the ITAT in the case of Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2004) 91 ITD 133 (Del.), wherein it was, inter alia, held that overall repairs involved routine maintenance repairs and, therefore, it could not be said that foreign company rendered any managerial, technical or consultancy service to the assessee. The assessee also made detailed submissions in regard to taxability under the provisions of relevant tax treaty/…

HCL COMNET LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 5898/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…by Gillette Israel to the assessee. Therefore the payment did not fall within the provisions of Explanation to section 9(1)(vii) . 5.8. In this regard reliance was placed on the order of the ITAT in the case of Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2004) 91 ITD 133 (Del.), wherein it was, inter alia, held that overall repairs involved routine maintenance repairs and, therefore, it could not be said that foreign company rendered any managerial, technical or consultancy service to the assessee. The assessee also made detailed submissions in regard to taxability under the provisions of relevant tax treaty/…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HCL COMNET LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 5651/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…by Gillette Israel to the assessee. Therefore the payment did not fall within the provisions of Explanation to section 9(1)(vii) . 5.8. In this regard reliance was placed on the order of the ITAT in the case of Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2004) 91 ITD 133 (Del.), wherein it was, inter alia, held that overall repairs involved routine maintenance repairs and, therefore, it could not be said that foreign company rendered any managerial, technical or consultancy service to the assessee. The assessee also made detailed submissions in regard to taxability under the provisions of relevant tax treaty/…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HCL COMNET LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 321/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…by Gillette Israel to the assessee. Therefore the payment did not fall within the provisions of Explanation to section 9(1)(vii) . 5.8. In this regard reliance was placed on the order of the ITAT in the case of Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2004) 91 ITD 133 (Del.), wherein it was, inter alia, held that overall repairs involved routine maintenance repairs and, therefore, it could not be said that foreign company rendered any managerial, technical or consultancy service to the assessee. The assessee also made detailed submissions in regard to taxability under the provisions of relevant tax treaty/…

HCL COMNET LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 5907/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…by Gillette Israel to the assessee. Therefore the payment did not fall within the provisions of Explanation to section 9(1)(vii) . 5.8. In this regard reliance was placed on the order of the ITAT in the case of Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2004) 91 ITD 133 (Del.), wherein it was, inter alia, held that overall repairs involved routine maintenance repairs and, therefore, it could not be said that foreign company rendered any managerial, technical or consultancy service to the assessee. The assessee also made detailed submissions in regard to taxability under the provisions of relevant tax treaty/…