Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT

30 SOT 374Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#462 most cited

What is Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot expand the scope of an assessment or improve the Assessing Officer's case in a manner that usurps the revisional power of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.

201

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT · CIT(A) powers · Section 263 · revisional power · scope of appeal · usurpation of power · Assessing Officer's case · ITAT Special Bench · Section 250 · Commissioner (Appeals)

Also reported as

313 ITR 263122 ITD 216122 TTJ 577117 Taxmann.com 578

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 144C(3)Section 139(1)Section 1961Section 250Section 143(2)Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7)section 120(4)(b)section 120(1)section 2(7a)section 163section 115jafees for included servicessection 120section 192tax treatysection 9(1)(vii)section 156

Judgments citing Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT

Accenture Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7686/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwallaa/wFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…question of deduction. But in no circumstance the Departmental Representative can be allowed to take a stand contrary to the one taken by the AO/TPO. 43. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2009] 122 TTJ (Mum.) (SB) 577/ 30 SOT 374 / [2010] 122 ITD 216 (Mum.) has laid down the proposition to the effect that the Departmental Representative has no jurisdiction to go beyond the order passed by the A.O. It has further been observed in this case that the scope of argument of the Departmental Representative should be confined to supporting or defending the impugned order and he ca…

DCIT (It) - 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Securities Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue for assessment year 2015-16 are dismissed

ITA 2726/MUM/2016[2015-16 ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Dcit (It)-3(1)(2), M/S Kotak Securities Ltd., Plot No. C-27, Bkc, Room No. 113, 1St Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Scindia House, Ballard Estate, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400038 Mumbai – 400051 Pan : Aaack3436F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru (Sr. DR)
Section 248

…ecipient is able to make use of the technical knowledge by himself in his own business or for his own benefit and without recourse to the service provider in the future. The Special Bench; Mumbai in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v DCIT (Mumbai) (SB) 313 ITR 263 (AT) (Refer Combined Paper Book Pg. No. 80 to 116), had an occasion to consider the meaning of the word 'make available' with reference to DTAA between India and UK) wherein the Tribunal at page 329 observed as under:- Assessment Year: 2015-16 "We have considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents rel…

Aarambh Advertising & Marketing Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-57(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 937/KOL/2015[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jul 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 936 & 937/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05 Aarambh Advertising & Marketing Ltd. -Vs- Ito(Tds), Wd-57(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaeca 7340 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM & Hon’ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A Nos. 936 & 937/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05 Aarambh Advertising & Marketing Ltd. -vs- ITO(TDS), Wd-57(1), Kolkata [PAN: AAECA 7340 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri G. Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 26.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 06.07.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. These appeals by the Assessee arise out of the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of In…

Aarambh Advertising & Marketing Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO (TDS) WD-57(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 936/KOL/2015[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jul 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 936 & 937/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05 Aarambh Advertising & Marketing Ltd. -Vs- Ito(Tds), Wd-57(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaeca 7340 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM & Hon’ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A Nos. 936 & 937/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05 Aarambh Advertising & Marketing Ltd. -vs- ITO(TDS), Wd-57(1), Kolkata [PAN: AAECA 7340 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri G. Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 26.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 06.07.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. These appeals by the Assessee arise out of the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of In…

Nunhems India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst.CIT, Circle 16(1)

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 1775/HYD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

…(2012) 346 ITR 0467; the payment cannot be treated as FTS under the DTAA as there is no imparting as contemplated in the Treaties. Similar are the propositions on the issue of "make available" in the decisions in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT 313 ITR 263; Ramond Limited vs. DCIT 86 ITD 791; Cable and Wireless Networks India P. Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 72. 41. The next aspect of this issue, which is raised as Ground No. 8 in the Department's Appeal is that, when the treaties do not contain FTS clause, what is the impact on taxability. Wherever FTS clause is not available in the treaty with a country, t…

Nunhems India Private Limited, R.R.Dist vs. JCIT, Range 16, Hyderabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 327/HYD/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

…(2012) 346 ITR 0467; the payment cannot be treated as FTS under the DTAA as there is no imparting as contemplated in the Treaties. Similar are the propositions on the issue of "make available" in the decisions in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT 313 ITR 263; Ramond Limited vs. DCIT 86 ITD 791; Cable and Wireless Networks India P. Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 72. 41. The next aspect of this issue, which is raised as Ground No. 8 in the Department's Appeal is that, when the treaties do not contain FTS clause, what is the impact on taxability. Wherever FTS clause is not available in the treaty with a country, t…

Nunhems India Pvt.Ltd., R.R.Dist vs. Addl.CIT, Range-16, Hyderabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 290/HYD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

…(2012) 346 ITR 0467; the payment cannot be treated as FTS under the DTAA as there is no imparting as contemplated in the Treaties. Similar are the propositions on the issue of "make available" in the decisions in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT 313 ITR 263; Ramond Limited vs. DCIT 86 ITD 791; Cable and Wireless Networks India P. Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 72. 41. The next aspect of this issue, which is raised as Ground No. 8 in the Department's Appeal is that, when the treaties do not contain FTS clause, what is the impact on taxability. Wherever FTS clause is not available in the treaty with a country, t…

Tech Mahindra Ltd. (Ca Satyam Asp Pvt. Ltd. Since Merged With Tech Mahindra Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ITO (International Taxation) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed only on the ground of limitation

ITA 5283/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K Pradhantech Mahindra Limited (Ca Satyam Asp Pvt. Ltd. Since Merged With Tech Mahindra Limited) ……………. Appellant Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aaacm3484F V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent I.T. Circle–1, Mumbai Assessee By : Shri Karthik Natrajan Revenue By : Shri M.V. Raj Guru

For Appellant: Shri Karthik NatrajanFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Raj Guru
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…arred by limitation. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee, however, did not find merit in them. Further, referring to the ITAT Mumbai Special Bench decision in case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2010] 122 ITD 216 (Mum.). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that in case the proceedings under section 201(1) of the Act is initiated within a period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, then, it is held to be within time. He observed, since, the show cause notice in case of the assessee was issued on 27th January 2014, it is within the…

Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) -1

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1609/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal & Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 154Section 69

…g the survey action, the assessee submitted the following written submissions: In support of his arguments, assessee relied on the following judgments/decisions : 1. Topstar Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 225 CTR 351 (Bom.) 2. Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. DCIT 122 ITD 216 (SB) (Mum-Trib.) 3. Trend Micro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 64 taxmann.com 462 (Delhi-Trib.) 4. ACIT Vs. Anima Investment Ltd. 73 ITD 125 (Delhi (TM) 5. ACIT Vs. Maersk Global Service Centre India Pvt. Ltd. 141 ITR 541 (Mum. Trib.) 6. ACIT Vs. Prakash I Shah 115 ITD 167 (Mum. Trib.) 7. ACIT Vs. Tech Books Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 176 ITJ 20 (Delhi.Trib…

Dy. CIT, Circle 1(2), Pune vs. Gera Development Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 767/PUN/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal & Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 154Section 69

…g the survey action, the assessee submitted the following written submissions: In support of his arguments, assessee relied on the following judgments/decisions : 1. Topstar Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 225 CTR 351 (Bom.) 2. Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. DCIT 122 ITD 216 (SB) (Mum-Trib.) 3. Trend Micro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 64 taxmann.com 462 (Delhi-Trib.) 4. ACIT Vs. Anima Investment Ltd. 73 ITD 125 (Delhi (TM) 5. ACIT Vs. Maersk Global Service Centre India Pvt. Ltd. 141 ITR 541 (Mum. Trib.) 6. ACIT Vs. Prakash I Shah 115 ITD 167 (Mum. Trib.) 7. ACIT Vs. Tech Books Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 176 ITJ 20 (Delhi.Trib…

Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Asst. CIT, Circle 1(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 597/PUN/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal & Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 154Section 69

…g the survey action, the assessee submitted the following written submissions: In support of his arguments, assessee relied on the following judgments/decisions : 1. Topstar Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 225 CTR 351 (Bom.) 2. Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. DCIT 122 ITD 216 (SB) (Mum-Trib.) 3. Trend Micro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 64 taxmann.com 462 (Delhi-Trib.) 4. ACIT Vs. Anima Investment Ltd. 73 ITD 125 (Delhi (TM) 5. ACIT Vs. Maersk Global Service Centre India Pvt. Ltd. 141 ITR 541 (Mum. Trib.) 6. ACIT Vs. Prakash I Shah 115 ITD 167 (Mum. Trib.) 7. ACIT Vs. Tech Books Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 176 ITJ 20 (Delhi.Trib…

DCIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Capita Offshore Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

The Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7141/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: S/Shri M.P. Lohia/ Hemen ChandariyaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande-DR
Section 144C(3)

…question of deduction. But in no circumstance the Departmental Representative can be allowed to take a stand contrary to the one taken by the AO/TPO. 43. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2009) 122 TTJ (Mum.) (SB) 577/ 30 SOT 374/(2010) 122 ITD 216(Mum.) has laid down the proposition to the effect that the Departmental Representative has no jurisdiction to go beyond the order passed by the A.O. It has further been observed in this case that the scope of argument of the Departmental Representative should be confined to supporting or defending the impugned order and he canno…

M/S.Us Technology Resources P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT(International Taxation), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Petition filed

ITA 122/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…es not prescribe the time limit for passing an order u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) of the I.T.Act, then reasonable time limit ought to be read into the provisions. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT reported in [(2010) 122 ITD 216 (Mum.)] had held that order passed u/s 201(1) is akin to an order of assessment and the reasonable time limit for passing an order u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) would be same as the time limit prescribed for initiating and completion of reassessment u/s 147 of the I.T.Act. The Special Bench of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in…

Dilip Kumar Arora, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ajmer

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

ITA 658/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Poonum Rai (DCIT)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…elied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383. The ld. AR has also relied upon the decision of Special Bench of Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT 122 TTJ 577 and submitted that there is not embargo on any party to raise a legal ground for the first time before the Tribunal provided the relevant material for deciding the question is already existed on record and no further investigation of facts is required. Hence, the ld. AR has submitted that when the additional grounds raised by the assessee is pu…

ITO (TDS) 3 (4), Mumbai vs. Vodafone Essar Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, (a) appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02,

ITA 4808/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Bajpai (AR)For Respondent: Yadav (DR)
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

…ears from the end of assessment year) for initiation of TDS proceedings in the case of CIT Vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (2008)(305 ITR 137)(Delhi). He further submitted that the Special Bench, in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd Vs. DCIT (2009)(122 TTJ 577)(SB) has prescribed time limit for completion of the TDS proceedings as one year from the end of the financial year in which proceedings u/s 201(1) of the Act was initiated. The decision of special bench has since been upheld by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the same case reported in 365 ITR 560. 12. The Ld. counsel further submitted that the impu…

ITO (OSD) (TDS) 3(1), Mumbai vs. Vodafone Essar Ltd ( Now Known As Vodafone India Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, (a) appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02,

ITA 5293/MUM/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Bajpai (AR)For Respondent: Yadav (DR)
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

…ears from the end of assessment year) for initiation of TDS proceedings in the case of CIT Vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (2008)(305 ITR 137)(Delhi). He further submitted that the Special Bench, in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd Vs. DCIT (2009)(122 TTJ 577)(SB) has prescribed time limit for completion of the TDS proceedings as one year from the end of the financial year in which proceedings u/s 201(1) of the Act was initiated. The decision of special bench has since been upheld by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the same case reported in 365 ITR 560. 12. The Ld. counsel further submitted that the impu…

ITO (OSD) (TDS) 3(1), Mumbai vs. Vodafone Essar Ltd ( Now Known As Vodafone India Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, (a) appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02,

ITA 4638/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Bajpai (AR)For Respondent: Yadav (DR)
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

…ears from the end of assessment year) for initiation of TDS proceedings in the case of CIT Vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (2008)(305 ITR 137)(Delhi). He further submitted that the Special Bench, in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd Vs. DCIT (2009)(122 TTJ 577)(SB) has prescribed time limit for completion of the TDS proceedings as one year from the end of the financial year in which proceedings u/s 201(1) of the Act was initiated. The decision of special bench has since been upheld by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the same case reported in 365 ITR 560. 12. The Ld. counsel further submitted that the impu…

Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar Ltd.), Mumbai vs. I.T.O. (OSD) (TDS) RG. 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, (a) appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02,

ITA 4511/MUM/2012[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Bajpai (AR)For Respondent: Yadav (DR)
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

…ears from the end of assessment year) for initiation of TDS proceedings in the case of CIT Vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (2008)(305 ITR 137)(Delhi). He further submitted that the Special Bench, in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd Vs. DCIT (2009)(122 TTJ 577)(SB) has prescribed time limit for completion of the TDS proceedings as one year from the end of the financial year in which proceedings u/s 201(1) of the Act was initiated. The decision of special bench has since been upheld by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the same case reported in 365 ITR 560. 12. The Ld. counsel further submitted that the impu…

M/S. T - 3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 826/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.826/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. T-3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd., D-Ii/65-1, Midc, Telco Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 …. Pan: Aacct9805F Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Arijit Chakravarty and Shraddha SwarupFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

…in this regard was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT & Anr. (2010) 193 Taxman 234 (SC). Reliance was also placed on the Special Bench decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 30 SOT 374 (Mumbai-Trib) (SB), wherein it was held that in respect of reimbursement of expenses, there was no obligation to deduct tax at source as there was no element of income involved in such payments. Reliance was placed on various other decisions for the same proposition that the payments towards reimbursement of expenses was not in the nature of incom…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Silicon Graphics Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2937/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kaushik, Adv
Section 143(3)

…ion in the case of Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. Vs CIT 323 ITR 130 (Del.) - held that no liability for TDS arises on a payment on account of reimbursement to a non- resident; Decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Mahindra & b) Mahindra Ltd. Vs DC IT 30 SOT 374 - held that no liability for TDS arises on a payment on account of reimbursement to a non-resident; Decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Industrial d) Engineering Projects Pvt Limited 2003-TIOL-247-HC-DEL-IT - held that reimbursement of expenses cannot be regarded as revenue receipts in the hands of non resident; Decision of Delhi…