Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CTO

77 STC 182High Court1990#4788 most cited

What is Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CTO authority for?

The transfer of the right to use goods involves a transfer of possessory rights, including control over the goods, and is not merely about having custody or possession without effective control.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CTO · 77 STC 182 · transfer of right to use goods · sale · control over goods · possession of equipment · sales-tax enactment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 12Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148A(b)

Issues it is cited on

section 206asection 206aause of equipmentsection 9(l)(vii)section 195(2)section 9(l)(vi)section 9(l)section 90(2)section 44bbsection 9(1)(vi)withholding taxstay petition

Judgments citing Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CTO

RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM USA INC.,TEXAS vs. DCIT (IT) 4 (1) (1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2991/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…use the equipment in future. In both the situations, the royalty clause is invokable. The learned senior counsel for the applicant sought to contend, relying on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CTO [1990] 77 STC 182 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, that mere custody or possession of equipment without effective control can only result in use of the equipment whereas a right to use the equipment implies control over the equipment. We do not think that such distinction has any legal basis. In the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra), what fell for…

ISAT AFRICA LIMITED FZC,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the final assessment order passed by AO is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed in above terms

ITA 832/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanisat Africa Limited Fzc Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Office No. 5 Pre-Fab, C Phase Ii, Of Income Tax Fujairah Free Zone Fujairah, Dubai, International Tax Circle- United Arab Emirates, Dubai - 2(2)(2) 999999 Mumbai, Maharashtra. Pan – Aagci8661Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 148ASection 195Section 201Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…e right to use goods falling within the extended definition of 'sale'. Let me now clarify the position further, with an illustration which is a variation of the illustration used by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of RashtriyaIspat Nigam Ltd. v. CTO 77 STC 182 (AP). Illustration: (i) A customer engages a carrier (transport operator) to transport one consignment (a full lorry load) from place A to B, for an agreed consideration which is called freight charges or lorry hire. The carrier sends its lorry to the customer's depot, picks up the consignment and proceeds to the destination for delivery of the co…

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 111/IND/2015[2013-14 (Quarter 4)]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

…use the equipment in future. In both the situations, the royalty clause is invokable. The learned senior counsel for the applicant sought to contend, relying on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CTO [1990] 77 STC 182 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, that mere custody or possession of equipment without effective control can only result in use of the equipment whereas a right to use the equipment implies control over the equipment. We do not think that such distinction has any legal basis. In the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra), what fell for…

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 110/IND/2015[2013-14 (for first three quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

…use the equipment in future. In both the situations, the royalty clause is invokable. The learned senior counsel for the applicant sought to contend, relying on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CTO [1990] 77 STC 182 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, that mere custody or possession of equipment without effective control can only result in use of the equipment whereas a right to use the equipment implies control over the equipment. We do not think that such distinction has any legal basis. In the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra), what fell for…

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 109/IND/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

…use the equipment in future. In both the situations, the royalty clause is invokable. The learned senior counsel for the applicant sought to contend, relying on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CTO [1990] 77 STC 182 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, that mere custody or possession of equipment without effective control can only result in use of the equipment whereas a right to use the equipment implies control over the equipment. We do not think that such distinction has any legal basis. In the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra), what fell for…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

ITA/334/2022HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 9

…ht to use goods falling within the extended definition of 'sale'. Let me now clarify the position further, with an illustration which is a variation of the illustration used by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CTO 77 STC 182 (AP). Illustration: (i) A customer engages a carrier (transport operator) to transport one consignment (a full lorry load) from place A to B, for an agreed consideration which is called freight charges or lorry hire. The carrier sends its lorry to the customer's depot, picks up the consignment and proceeds to the destination for delivery of…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

ITA/206/2023HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 9

…ht to use goods falling within the extended definition of 'sale'. Let me now clarify the position further, with an illustration which is a variation of the illustration used by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CTO 77 STC 182 (AP). Illustration: (i) A customer engages a carrier (transport operator) to transport one consignment (a full lorry load) from place A to B, for an agreed consideration which is called freight charges or lorry hire. The carrier sends its lorry to the customer's depot, picks up the consignment and proceeds to the destination for delivery of…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

ITA/61/2023HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 9

…ht to use goods falling within the extended definition of 'sale'. Let me now clarify the position further, with an illustration which is a variation of the illustration used by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CTO 77 STC 182 (AP). Illustration: (i) A customer engages a carrier (transport operator) to transport one consignment (a full lorry load) from place A to B, for an agreed consideration which is called freight charges or lorry hire. The carrier sends its lorry to the customer's depot, picks up the consignment and proceeds to the destination for delivery of…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

ITA/55/2023HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 9

…ht to use goods falling within the extended definition of 'sale'. Let me now clarify the position further, with an illustration which is a variation of the illustration used by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CTO 77 STC 182 (AP). Illustration: (i) A customer engages a carrier (transport operator) to transport one consignment (a full lorry load) from place A to B, for an agreed consideration which is called freight charges or lorry hire. The carrier sends its lorry to the customer's depot, picks up the consignment and proceeds to the destination for delivery of…

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 811/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.811/Bang/2024 & Sp No.22/Bang/2024

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 201Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…use the equipment in future. In both the situations, the royalty clause is invokable. The learned senior counsel for the applicant sought to contend, relying on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CTO [1990] 77 STC 182 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, that mere custody or possession of equipment without effective control can only result in use of the equipment whereas a right to use the equipment implies control over the equipment. We do not think that such distinction has any legal basis. In the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra), what fell for…

GLOBE TELESERVICES LIMITED,HONG KONG vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 349/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(It)A Nos. 348 & 349/Bang/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri A. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 191Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

…use the equipment in future. In both the situations, the royalty clause is invokable. The learned senior counsel for the applicant sought to contend, relying on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CTO [1990] 77 STC 182 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, that mere custody or possession of equipment without effective control can only result in use of the equipment whereas a right to use the equipment implies control over the equipment. We do not think that such distinction has any legal basis. In the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra), what fell for…

GLOBE TELESERVICES LIMITED,HONG KONG vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 348/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(It)A Nos. 348 & 349/Bang/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri A. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 191Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

…use the equipment in future. In both the situations, the royalty clause is invokable. The learned senior counsel for the applicant sought to contend, relying on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CTO [1990] 77 STC 182 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, that mere custody or possession of equipment without effective control can only result in use of the equipment whereas a right to use the equipment implies control over the equipment. We do not think that such distinction has any legal basis. In the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra), what fell for…

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, JAPAN

ITA 102/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

For Appellant: Shri Arjit Prasad, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Subash K R, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201

…nvokable. The learned senior counsel for the applicant Page 17 of 32 S.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos. 100 to 102/Bang/2024 sought to contend, relying on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CTO [1990] 77 STC 182 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, that mere custody or possession of equipment without effective control can only result in use of the equipment whereas a right to use the equipment implies control over the equipment. We do not think that such distinction has any legal basis. In the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra), what fell for…

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

ITA 101/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

For Appellant: Shri Arjit Prasad, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Subash K R, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201

…nvokable. The learned senior counsel for the applicant Page 17 of 32 S.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos. 100 to 102/Bang/2024 sought to contend, relying on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CTO [1990] 77 STC 182 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, that mere custody or possession of equipment without effective control can only result in use of the equipment whereas a right to use the equipment implies control over the equipment. We do not think that such distinction has any legal basis. In the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra), what fell for…

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

ITA 100/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

For Appellant: Shri Arjit Prasad, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Subash K R, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201

…nvokable. The learned senior counsel for the applicant Page 17 of 32 S.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos. 100 to 102/Bang/2024 sought to contend, relying on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CTO [1990] 77 STC 182 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, that mere custody or possession of equipment without effective control can only result in use of the equipment whereas a right to use the equipment implies control over the equipment. We do not think that such distinction has any legal basis. In the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra), what fell for…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. ORANGE (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FRANCE TELECOM)), FRANCE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 711/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 711/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Orange The Deputy (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of France Telecom), Income Tax, 78, Rue Olivaier De Circle – 2(2), Serres, International Paris, Taxation, Vs. France. Bengaluru. Pan: Aacco8859J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri D.S. Karthik, Jcit (Dr)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Karthik, JCIT (DR)
Section 14Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 9

…use the equipment in future. In both the situations, the royalty clause is invokable. The learned senior counsel for the applicant sought to contend, relying on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CTO [1990] 77 STC 182 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, that mere custody or possession of equipment without effective control can only result in use of the equipment whereas a right to use the equipment implies control over the equipment. We do not think that such distinction has any legal basis. In the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra), what fell for…

M/S. TELECOM ITALIA SPARKLE SINGAPORE PTE. LIMITED,SINGAPORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION- CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 580/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 579 & 580/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2010-11 M/S. Telecom Italia The Deputy Sparkle Singapore Pte. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, 23-01, Suntec Tower (International Four, Taxation), 6 Temasek Boulevard, Vs. Circle – 2(1), Singapore – 038986 Bangalore. Pan: Aagct6780P Appellant Respondent & It(It)A No. 1138/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ti Sparkle The Deputy Singapore Pte. Ltd., Commissioner Of 23-01, Suntec Tower Income Tax, Four, (International 6 Temasek Boulevard, Taxation), Singapore – 038986 Circle – 2(2), Vs. Pan: Aagct6780P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nischal .B, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 148Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A Nos. 579 & 580/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2010-11 M/s. Telecom Italia The Deputy Sparkle Singapore Pte. Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax, 23-01, Suntec Tower (International Four, Taxation), 6 Temasek Boulevard, Vs. Circle – 2(1), Singapore – 038986 Bangalore. PAN: AAGCT6780P APPELLANT RESPONDENT & IT(IT)A No. 1138/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s. TI Sparkle The Deputy Singapore Pte. Ltd., Commissioner of 23-01, Suntec Tower Income Tax, Four,…

M/S. TELECOM ITALIA SPARKLE SINGAPORE PTE. LIMITED,SINGAPORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION- CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 579/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 579 & 580/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2010-11 M/S. Telecom Italia The Deputy Sparkle Singapore Pte. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, 23-01, Suntec Tower (International Four, Taxation), 6 Temasek Boulevard, Vs. Circle – 2(1), Singapore – 038986 Bangalore. Pan: Aagct6780P Appellant Respondent & It(It)A No. 1138/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ti Sparkle The Deputy Singapore Pte. Ltd., Commissioner Of 23-01, Suntec Tower Income Tax, Four, (International 6 Temasek Boulevard, Taxation), Singapore – 038986 Circle – 2(2), Vs. Pan: Aagct6780P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nischal .B, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 148Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A Nos. 579 & 580/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2010-11 M/s. Telecom Italia The Deputy Sparkle Singapore Pte. Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax, 23-01, Suntec Tower (International Four, Taxation), 6 Temasek Boulevard, Vs. Circle – 2(1), Singapore – 038986 Bangalore. PAN: AAGCT6780P APPELLANT RESPONDENT & IT(IT)A No. 1138/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s. TI Sparkle The Deputy Singapore Pte. Ltd., Commissioner of 23-01, Suntec Tower Income Tax, Four,…

TELEFONICA DE ESPANA SA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 180/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13 M/S. Telefonica Depreciation Espana Sa, C/O. Bsr & Co.Llp, 3Rd Floor, Pebble The Acit(It)/Dcit(It), Beach, Circle – 2(2), Embassy Golf Links Bangalore. Business Park, Vs. Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aahct0411G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 234ASection 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A Nos. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2010-11 to 2012-13 M/s. Telefonica Depreciation Espana SA, C/o. BSR & Co.LLP, 3rd Floor, Pebble The ACIT(IT)/DCIT(IT), Beach, Circle – 2(2), Embassy Golf Links Bangalore. Business Park, Vs. Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 071. PAN: AAHCT0411G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sharath Rao, CA Revenue by : Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 25-07-2023 Date of Pronouncem…

M/S. TELEFONICA DE ESPANA SA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE- 2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2657/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13 M/S. Telefonica Depreciation Espana Sa, C/O. Bsr & Co.Llp, 3Rd Floor, Pebble The Acit(It)/Dcit(It), Beach, Circle – 2(2), Embassy Golf Links Bangalore. Business Park, Vs. Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aahct0411G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 234ASection 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A Nos. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2010-11 to 2012-13 M/s. Telefonica Depreciation Espana SA, C/o. BSR & Co.LLP, 3rd Floor, Pebble The ACIT(IT)/DCIT(IT), Beach, Circle – 2(2), Embassy Golf Links Bangalore. Business Park, Vs. Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 071. PAN: AAHCT0411G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sharath Rao, CA Revenue by : Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 25-07-2023 Date of Pronouncem…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2