Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT

95 ITD 269High Court2005#423 most cited

What is Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT authority for?

Revenue must demonstrate the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) of a foreign enterprise in India, including establishing that transactions underlying a Dependent Agent PE were not at arm's length. Income from the sale of goods is not taxable in India if title and risk in the goods pass outside India.

213

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT · 95 ITD 269 · Special Bench Delhi Tribunal · Permanent Establishment onus · Dependent Agent PE burden of proof · Arm's length conditions · Title passing outside India · Source of income taxability · Section 9(1) business connection · Tax treaty interpretation · Sale of equipment

Also reported as

147 Taxmann 39

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 148Section 270ASection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 28(v)

Issues it is cited on

agency pedependent agent pefixed place pecopyrighted articlesection 9(1)(vi)section 90(2)royalty incomepermanent establishmenttax treatycomputer softwarebusiness connectionsection 9(1)

Judgments citing Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT

M/S Urban Ladder Home Decor Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation), Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 618/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A No.615 To 620/Bang/2020 Assessment Years :2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-2017, 2017-18 & 2017-18 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Padam.C. Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 133ASection 20Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…IT(IT)A No.615 to 620/Bang/2020 M/s. Urban Ladder Home Décor Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A No.615 to 620/Bang/2020 Assessment Years :2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-2017, 2017-18 & 2017-18 respectively Urban Ladder Home Décor Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 1st, 2nd& 3rd Floor, No.259 & 276 ACIT (International Amarjyothi HBCS Layout Taxation) Vs. Domlur Circle-2(2) Bengaluru 560 071 Bengaluru PAN NO :AABCU4143N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padam.C. Kincha…

M/S Urban Ladder Home Decor Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation), Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 617/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A No.615 To 620/Bang/2020 Assessment Years :2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-2017, 2017-18 & 2017-18 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Padam.C. Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 133ASection 20Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…IT(IT)A No.615 to 620/Bang/2020 M/s. Urban Ladder Home Décor Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A No.615 to 620/Bang/2020 Assessment Years :2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-2017, 2017-18 & 2017-18 respectively Urban Ladder Home Décor Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 1st, 2nd& 3rd Floor, No.259 & 276 ACIT (International Amarjyothi HBCS Layout Taxation) Vs. Domlur Circle-2(2) Bengaluru 560 071 Bengaluru PAN NO :AABCU4143N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padam.C. Kincha…

M/S Urban Ladder Home Decor Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation), Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 616/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A No.615 To 620/Bang/2020 Assessment Years :2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-2017, 2017-18 & 2017-18 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Padam.C. Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 133ASection 20Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…IT(IT)A No.615 to 620/Bang/2020 M/s. Urban Ladder Home Décor Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A No.615 to 620/Bang/2020 Assessment Years :2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-2017, 2017-18 & 2017-18 respectively Urban Ladder Home Décor Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 1st, 2nd& 3rd Floor, No.259 & 276 ACIT (International Amarjyothi HBCS Layout Taxation) Vs. Domlur Circle-2(2) Bengaluru 560 071 Bengaluru PAN NO :AABCU4143N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padam.C. Kincha…

M/S Urban Ladder Home Decor Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation), Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 615/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A No.615 To 620/Bang/2020 Assessment Years :2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-2017, 2017-18 & 2017-18 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Padam.C. Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 133ASection 20Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…IT(IT)A No.615 to 620/Bang/2020 M/s. Urban Ladder Home Décor Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A No.615 to 620/Bang/2020 Assessment Years :2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-2017, 2017-18 & 2017-18 respectively Urban Ladder Home Décor Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 1st, 2nd& 3rd Floor, No.259 & 276 ACIT (International Amarjyothi HBCS Layout Taxation) Vs. Domlur Circle-2(2) Bengaluru 560 071 Bengaluru PAN NO :AABCU4143N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padam.C. Kincha…

Zte Corporation, Gurgaon vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Gurgaon

ITA 1930/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2017-18
Section 133A

…ied on the definition of "copyright" under Section 14 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. It also relied on the decision of Delhi Special Bench Tribunal in SA No.364/Del/2020 & CO No.07/Del/2021 ZTE Corporation vs. DCIT & Ors. Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT [2005] 95 ITD 269/147 Taxman 39 (Mag.) (Delhi) (SB). It was therefore stated that the receipts from sale of computer software is in the nature of payment for the use of copyrighted article as against payment for use of a copyright in the software and hence such payment shall not constitute royalty under IndiaChina tax treaty. 7. The AO also referred to the decision…

Zte Corporation, China vs. JCIT (OSD) International Taxation, Gurgaon

ITA 1474/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2016-17
Section 133A

…ied on the definition of "copyright" under Section 14 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. It also relied on the decision of Delhi Special Bench Tribunal in SA No.364/Del/2020 & CO No.07/Del/2021 ZTE Corporation vs. DCIT & Ors. Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT [2005] 95 ITD 269/147 Taxman 39 (Mag.) (Delhi) (SB). It was therefore stated that the receipts from sale of computer software is in the nature of payment for the use of copyrighted article as against payment for use of a copyright in the software and hence such payment shall not constitute royalty under IndiaChina tax treaty. 7. The AO also referred to the decision…

DCIT, Int. Tax., .Circle Gurgaon, Gurgaon vs. Zte Corporation, China

ITA 8185/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2016-17
Section 133A

…ied on the definition of "copyright" under Section 14 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. It also relied on the decision of Delhi Special Bench Tribunal in SA No.364/Del/2020 & CO No.07/Del/2021 ZTE Corporation vs. DCIT & Ors. Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT [2005] 95 ITD 269/147 Taxman 39 (Mag.) (Delhi) (SB). It was therefore stated that the receipts from sale of computer software is in the nature of payment for the use of copyrighted article as against payment for use of a copyright in the software and hence such payment shall not constitute royalty under IndiaChina tax treaty. 7. The AO also referred to the decision…

Inmarsat Global Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (It)-2(1)92), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7485/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shree Manoj Kumar Aggarwalinmarsat Global Ltd., Vs. Dy. Cit(It)-2(1)(2) Ernst & Young Llp, R.No.1612, 17Th Floor, 14Th Floor, Ruby-29, Air India Bldg, Senapati Bapat Marg, Nariman Point, Dadar(W), Mumbai – Mumbai 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci6098K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Aarati Sathe, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271Section 9(1)(vi)

…for software is for a copyrighted article and not copyright per se, and, therefore, is not covered by the scope of payment for copyright. The authority for this proposition is contained in Special Bench decision in the case of Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT (2005) 95 ITD 269 (Del)(SB), Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. v. ITO (2005) 94 ITD 91 (Bang), and Lucent Technologies Hindustan Ltd. v. ITO (2005) 92 ITD 366 (Bang). It is not even the revenues case that the payment in question is not (sic) for the use of, or right to use of, patent, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or trade mark. In any event, hav…

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-008733-008734 - 2018Supreme Court02 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8733-8734 OF 2018 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED …APPELLANT Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME …RESPONDENTS TAX & ANR. WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8735-8736 OF 2018 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8737-8941 OF 2018 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8942-8947 OF 2018 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8950-8953 OF 2018 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8948-8949 OF 2018 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4419 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4420 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10114 OF 2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10097 OF 2013 CIVIL…

M/S Embassy One Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2240/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Kannan Narayanan, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

…India—which is essentially to be treated as a part of the IT Act as it is based on the interpretation of provisions under the IT Act and apply the same. As observed by this Tribunal, in the case of Motorola Inc. vs. Dy. CIT (2005) 96 TTJ (Del)(SB) 1 : (2005) 95 ITD 269 (Del)(SB), a tax treaty is an alternative tax regime. It has to be treated as a complete code in itself, in that sense. There are thus no legally sustainable merits in learned Departmental Representative’s passionate plea for invoking principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126 : (1985) 154 I…

M/S Embassy One Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2239/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Kannan Narayanan, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

…India—which is essentially to be treated as a part of the IT Act as it is based on the interpretation of provisions under the IT Act and apply the same. As observed by this Tribunal, in the case of Motorola Inc. vs. Dy. CIT (2005) 96 TTJ (Del)(SB) 1 : (2005) 95 ITD 269 (Del)(SB), a tax treaty is an alternative tax regime. It has to be treated as a complete code in itself, in that sense. There are thus no legally sustainable merits in learned Departmental Representative’s passionate plea for invoking principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126 : (1985) 154 I…

Sudhir S Mehta, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7147/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Mr Mitali Gopani, AR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 234ASection 57Section 69C

…ability of the section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act should be after considering the amount of tax deductible at source on the income assessed. The appellant relies in this regard on the following decisions. He relied upon the cases of Motorola inc. v. DCIT [95 ITD 269 (Del.) (SB)], Sedco Fores Drilling Co. Ltd. [264 ITR 320], NGC Network Asia LLC [313 ITR 187], Summit Bhatacharya [ 300 ITR (AT) 347 (Bom)(SB)], Vijal Gopal Jindal [ITA No. 4333/Del/2009] & Emillo Ruiz Berdejo [320 ITR 190 (Bom)]. DR relied upon the cases of Devine Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 3.1.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material…

Inmarsat Global Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7025/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodinmarsat Global Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Tax (International Taxation) 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Circle 2(2)(1), 17Th Floor, Vs. 20 Senapati Bapat Marg, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Dadar (W), Mumbai 400 028 Mumbai 400 021 Pan – Aaaci6098K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 9(1)(vi)

…for software is for a copyrighted article and not copyright per se, and, therefore, is not covered by the scope of payment for copyright. The authority for this proposition is contained in Special Bench decision in the case of Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT (2005) 95 ITD 269 (Del)(SB), Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. v. ITO (2005) 94 ITD 91 (Bang), and Lucent Technologies Hindustan Ltd. v. ITO (2005) 92 ITD 366 (Bang). It is not even the revenues case that the payment in question is not (sic) for the use of, or right to use of, patent, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or trade mark. In any event, hav…

Symantec Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1000/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1000/Del/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year 2013-14 Symantec Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., 6 Temasek Boulevard, #12-01, Suntec Tower Four, Singapore 038986 ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaocs1828F Vs The Dcit (International Taxation), Circle-3(1)(2), Room No.419, Block E-2, Civic Centre, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent J.L.N.Marg, New Delhi-110002. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. & Ms. Deepika Aggarwal, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "द"ल" "यायपीठ “डी”, नई "द"ल" म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI सु"ी सुषमा चावला, उपा"य" एवं "ी एन. के. "ब"लैया, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP & SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, AM [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1000/Del/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year 2013-14 Symantec Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., 6 Temasek Boulevard, #12-01, Suntec Tower Four, Singapore 038986 ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN-AAOCS1828F vs The DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-3(1)(2), Room No.419, Block E-2, Civic Centre, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent J.L.N.Marg, New Delhi-…

Nagravision Sa, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9130/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.9130/Del/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "द"ल" "यायपीठ “डी”, नई "द"ल" म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI सु"ी सुषमा चावला, उपा"य" एवं "ी "शांत मह"ष", लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.9130/Del/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2016-17 Nagravision S.A. C/o-Ernst & Young LLP, Golf View, Corporate Tower, Tower-B, Sector-42, Gurugram, Haryana-122002. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN-AADCN6048B vs The ACIT(International Taxation), …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-2(2)(2), New Delhi. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Sh. Deepak Chopra, Adv.…

Audi Ag, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 1(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal is hereby allowed

ITA 6363/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhaudi Ag Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, (International Taxation)-1(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Room No. 117, 1St Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Scindia House, Ballard Estate, Dadar (West), Mumbai – 400 028 Mumbai- 400 038 Maharashtra.

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9

…that since the assessee did not conclude any contracts on behalf of Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc (MSCo), it did not have an agency PE in India. Similar view has also been taken by the Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in case of Motorola Inc & Others v. DIT (2005) 95 ITD 269 (refer page nos. 580, 589 & 591 of Paper Book Volume II) and the Authority for Advance Rulings in case of TVVM Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 230 (Refer page 600 & 618 of Paper Book Volume II). The Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal has in the case of Western Union Financial Services Inc ( 104 ITD 34) (Refer Pg 522 & 547 of Paper Book Volume II) observed that the…

M/S. Voith Paper Gmbh, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 5(2)Section 9

…nection" in India u/s 9(1)(i) & a "permanent establishment" under Article 5 of the DTAA. It was also held that the income from supply of software was assessable as "royalty" u/s 9(1)(vi) & Article 13. On appeal, the Special Bench of the Tribunal (Motorola Inc 95 ITD 269 (Del)) held that as the equipment had been transferred by the assessee offshore, the profits there from were not chargeable to tax. It was also held that the profits from the supply of software was not assessable to tax as "royalty". 229. On appeal to the High Court, Hon'ble Court dismissed Revenue's appeal by observing as under: (i) The profits…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Citibank Overseas Investment Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 34/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blecitibank Overseas Investment Corporation V. Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – 2(1)(1) C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Room No. 1713, 17Th Floor 30 Floor, Tower 3 Air India Building India Bulls Finance Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aabcc5333N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – 2(1)(1) V. Citibank Overseas Investment Room No. 1713, 17Th Floor Corporation Air India Building C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp 30 Floor, Tower 3 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 India Bulls Finance Centre Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aabcc5333N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 244A

…en the assessee is not liable to pay advance tax, there is no question of charging interest under Section 234B of the Act by relying upon the decision in the case of Motorola Inc. rendered by Hon’ble Special Bench of ITAT, "A" Bench, Delhi, reported in (2005) 95 ITD 269." 2. Our attention is invited to the following findings recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated 12th December, 2007: "Thus, in the given case, though assessee is assessable in respect of the income (though of course and it would not be if its quantum appeal is successful), it is not liable to pay advance tax, since tax is deductible by the pay…

Citibank Overseas Investment Corporation, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 276/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blecitibank Overseas Investment Corporation V. Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – 2(1)(1) C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Room No. 1713, 17Th Floor 30 Floor, Tower 3 Air India Building India Bulls Finance Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aabcc5333N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – 2(1)(1) V. Citibank Overseas Investment Room No. 1713, 17Th Floor Corporation Air India Building C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp 30 Floor, Tower 3 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 India Bulls Finance Centre Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aabcc5333N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 244A

…en the assessee is not liable to pay advance tax, there is no question of charging interest under Section 234B of the Act by relying upon the decision in the case of Motorola Inc. rendered by Hon’ble Special Bench of ITAT, "A" Bench, Delhi, reported in (2005) 95 ITD 269." 2. Our attention is invited to the following findings recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated 12th December, 2007: "Thus, in the given case, though assessee is assessable in respect of the income (though of course and it would not be if its quantum appeal is successful), it is not liable to pay advance tax, since tax is deductible by the pay…

ACIT Company Circle VI(1), Chennai vs. Saipem India Projects Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 1210/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.Pranith Golecha, CA /For Respondent: Mr. J.Pavithran Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)Section 92C

…same nature as what were received by it from the said concern in the previous year relevant to assessment years 2002-03 to 2006-2007. In its order dated 16.09.2011, this Tribunal had followed the decision of Special Bench in the case of Motorala Inc. vs. DCIT 95 ITD 269 and had held as under:- ‘’15. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. In the instant case, we find that no specific error in the order of the ld. CIT(A) could be pointed out by the ld. D.R. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Delhi Special B…