Raymond Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

86 ITD 791Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2003#642 most cited

What is Raymond Ltd. v. Dy. CIT authority for?

For services to qualify as 'Fees for Technical Services' or 'Fees for Included Services' under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs), they must 'make available' technical knowledge, experience, skill, or processes to the recipient, enabling them to apply such expertise independently.

154

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Raymond Ltd v Dy CIT · 86 ITD 791 · section 9(1)(vii) · section 195 · Fees for Technical Services · FTS · Fees for Included Services · FIS · Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement · DTAA · make available clause · international taxation · withholding tax

Also reported as

93 TTJ 293

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 9(1)(vii)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(13)Section 195Section 234BSection 115A

Issues it is cited on

section 209(1)section 9(l)(vi)make available clausesection 9(l)fees for included servicessection 14(a)section 209section 9(1)(vii)copyrighted articlesection 44bbsection 9(1)(vi)section 44b

Judgments citing Raymond Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

H.J. Heinz Company, Usa, Mumbai vs. ADIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6252/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleh. J. Heinz Company, Usa Vs Adit 7Th Floor, D-Shivsagar Estate, Circle-1(2) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli International Taxation Mumabi New Delhi Aacch2144P (Respondent) (Appellant) H. J. Heinz Company, Usa Vs Acit 7Th Floor, D-Shivsagar Estate, Circle-2(1)(1), Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli International Taxation, Mumabi Room No. 410, 4Th Floor, E- Aacch2144P Z Block, Pratyaksh Kar (Appellant) Bhawan New Delhi (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…‘making available’ has been discussed in detail and the issue is ruled in favour of the tax payers. i) US Technology Resources (P) Ltd. 407 ITR 327 ii) Guy Carpenter & Co. 346 ITR 504 (Del HC) iii) De Beers India Minerals (P) Ltd. 346 ITR 467 iv) Raymond Ltd. 86 ITD 791 v) Koninklijke Philips Electronics Pvt. N. V. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 23 vi) Exxon Mobil Company India (P) Ltd. (2018) 92 taxmann.com 5 vii) Bombardier Transportation India (P) Ltd. 162 ITD 586 viii) Timken Company (2017) 88 taxmann.com 21 ix) Outotec Oyj (2017) 162 ITD 541 x) Steria (India) Ltd. 386 ITR 390 xi) Cummins Ltd. 381 ITR 44 xii) Sandvik…

ACIT 11(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Total Oil India P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4300/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri S. Usmani (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ct and accordingly allowed the claim of the assessee. However, at the time of argument, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has also placed reliance upon the decision of the CIT Vs. De Beers India Mineral P. Ltd. (346 ITR 467) and Raymond Limited Vs. DCIT (86 ITD 791) The said decisions are in connection of similar nature of expenses. We are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. ITA. Nos. 4135/M/2016 & 4300/M/2…

Total Oil India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

ITA 4135/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri S. Usmani (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ct and accordingly allowed the claim of the assessee. However, at the time of argument, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has also placed reliance upon the decision of the CIT Vs. De Beers India Mineral P. Ltd. (346 ITR 467) and Raymond Limited Vs. DCIT (86 ITD 791) The said decisions are in connection of similar nature of expenses. We are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. ITA. Nos. 4135/M/2016 & 4300/M/2…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Amol Dicalite Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 539/AHD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 539/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1246/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, Amol Dicalite Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Akshay, 53, Ahmedabad Shirmali Society Navrangpura, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.R
Section 40

…he ITA nos.539/AHD/2018 & 1246/AHD/2016 Asstt. Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 10 assessee. Thus the contention of the assessee that nothing was made available to the assessee by the parties and services are rendered outside India as held in the case of Raymond Ltd (86 ITD 791), and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd (30 SOT 374) is factually incorrect. 10.9 In Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd (supra) the facts of the case were related to the managing and selling FCCB on behalf of the client and the services were not provided to Mahindra & Mahindra though it was for the benefit of it and accordingly tribunal, in that case, concluded that…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Amol Dicalite Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1246/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 539/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1246/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, Amol Dicalite Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Akshay, 53, Ahmedabad Shirmali Society Navrangpura, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.R
Section 40

…he ITA nos.539/AHD/2018 & 1246/AHD/2016 Asstt. Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 10 assessee. Thus the contention of the assessee that nothing was made available to the assessee by the parties and services are rendered outside India as held in the case of Raymond Ltd (86 ITD 791), and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd (30 SOT 374) is factually incorrect. 10.9 In Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd (supra) the facts of the case were related to the managing and selling FCCB on behalf of the client and the services were not provided to Mahindra & Mahindra though it was for the benefit of it and accordingly tribunal, in that case, concluded that…

M/S Outotec India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4511/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 4511/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Outotec India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income 507, 5Th Floor, Copia Corporate Tax, Circle-13(1), Suites, 9, Jasola Commercial New Delhi-110002 Complex, Jasola, New Delhi-110025, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco9433A Assessee By : Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv. & Sh. Suvinay Kumar Dash, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

For Appellant: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 40

…milar technology or techniques in future without depending on the provider.” 4.15 Further, the connotations of expression ‘make available' were considered by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("Tribunal”) in the case of Raymond Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2003) 86 ITD 791 (Mumbai). The Tribunal, after elaborate analysis of ail the related aspects, observed that "Thus, the normal, plain and grammatical meaning of the language employed, in our understanding, is that a mere rendering of services not roped in unless the person utilizing the services is able to make use of technical knowledge, etc., by himself in his bu…

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Kolkata vs. ACIT(It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee, in all the assessment years, are allowed in part

ITA 87/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 112/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………...............................………...…………………….…Assessee [Pan : Aacck 0806 B] Dcit(It) -1(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..………...Revenue & I.T.A. No. 87/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………........................................………...…………………….…Assessee [Pan : Aacck 0806 B] Acit(It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..………...Revenue & I.T.A. No.2474/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………........................................………...…………………….…Assessee [Pan : Aacck 0806 B] Acit(It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..………...Revenue Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Navneet Misra, Adovacate, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. K. Srihari, Cit-Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 143(3)

…he India-USA DTAA can be used while interpreting other DTAAs which have similar "make available" clause under FTS Article. [ CIT vs. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd. 21 taxmann.com 214 (Kar), C.E.S.C Ltd. vs. DCIT 87 ITD 653 (Kol - TM), Raymond Ltd. vs. DCIT 86 ITD 791 (Mum)] The MOU explains ‘make available’ as follows: “Generally speaking, technology will be considered "made available" when the person acquiring the service is enabled to apply the technology. The fact that the provision of the service may require technical input by the person providing the service does not per se means that technical knowledg…

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Kolkata vs. DCIT, (It)-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee, in all the assessment years, are allowed in part

ITA 112/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 112/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………...............................………...…………………….…Assessee [Pan : Aacck 0806 B] Dcit(It) -1(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..………...Revenue & I.T.A. No. 87/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………........................................………...…………………….…Assessee [Pan : Aacck 0806 B] Acit(It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..………...Revenue & I.T.A. No.2474/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………........................................………...…………………….…Assessee [Pan : Aacck 0806 B] Acit(It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..………...Revenue Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Navneet Misra, Adovacate, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. K. Srihari, Cit-Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 143(3)

…he India-USA DTAA can be used while interpreting other DTAAs which have similar "make available" clause under FTS Article. [ CIT vs. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd. 21 taxmann.com 214 (Kar), C.E.S.C Ltd. vs. DCIT 87 ITD 653 (Kol - TM), Raymond Ltd. vs. DCIT 86 ITD 791 (Mum)] The MOU explains ‘make available’ as follows: “Generally speaking, technology will be considered "made available" when the person acquiring the service is enabled to apply the technology. The fact that the provision of the service may require technical input by the person providing the service does not per se means that technical knowledg…

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Kolkata vs. ACIT(It), Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee, in all the assessment years, are allowed in part

ITA 2474/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 112/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………...............................………...…………………….…Assessee [Pan : Aacck 0806 B] Dcit(It) -1(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..………...Revenue & I.T.A. No. 87/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………........................................………...…………………….…Assessee [Pan : Aacck 0806 B] Acit(It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..………...Revenue & I.T.A. No.2474/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Koninklijke Philips N.V……………………………........................................………...…………………….…Assessee [Pan : Aacck 0806 B] Acit(It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..………...Revenue Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Navneet Misra, Adovacate, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. K. Srihari, Cit-Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 143(3)

…he India-USA DTAA can be used while interpreting other DTAAs which have similar "make available" clause under FTS Article. [ CIT vs. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd. 21 taxmann.com 214 (Kar), C.E.S.C Ltd. vs. DCIT 87 ITD 653 (Kol - TM), Raymond Ltd. vs. DCIT 86 ITD 791 (Mum)] The MOU explains ‘make available’ as follows: “Generally speaking, technology will be considered "made available" when the person acquiring the service is enabled to apply the technology. The fact that the provision of the service may require technical input by the person providing the service does not per se means that technical knowledg…

ACIT, Cir-5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Bativala & Karani Securities (India) (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1812/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1812/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Batlivala & Karnani Securities (I)(P) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 4650 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40

…in the case of AEG Telefunken v. CIT [1998] 233 ITR 129/101 Taxman 109 (Kar.) compared the DTAA with German Democratic Republic with the DTAA with Finland towards this end. 12.2.2 The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Raymond Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2003] 86 ITD 791 had to deal with a case of payment of commission by an Indian company to a non-resident in connection with Public Issue of Global Depository Receipts (GDR) for services rendered outside India. The question before the Tribunal was whether the commission so paid can be said to be "Fees for included services" i.e., Fees for Technical Services under A…

Soregam Sa, Gurgaon vs. DDIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 123/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblesoregam Sa Vs Ddit C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Circle-3(2) 7Th Floor, Building No. 10 Intl. Taxation, Block-E2, Civil Tower B, Dlf Cyber City Complex, Centre, Jln Marg Dlf City Phase-Ii New Delhi Gurgaon Aaocs3856K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…erson purchasing the service, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b). Similarly, the use of a product which embodies technology shall not per se be considered to make the technology available” The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Raymond Ltd. vs. DCIT [2003] 86 ITD 791 (Mum) wherein the Tribunal interpreted the meaning of the term “make-available”. The Ld. AR also relied upon the following case laws: i. CIT vs. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd. [2012] 346 ITR 467 (Kar) ii. ACIT vs. Petronet LNG Ltd. ITA No. 865/Del/2011 10. The Ld. AR submitted that in light of the explanation in the MIPL to the India-US tax t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maharani Enterprises, Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross- Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5806/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 40

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 5806/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2011-12) ACIT Vs Maharani Enterprises Circle-28(1) 20-A, Gadodia Market, New Delhi Khari Baoli (APPELLANT) Delhi AAMFM4846Q (RESPONDENT) C.O .No. 115/DEL/2015 (A.Y 2011-12) Maharani Enterprises Vs ACIT 20-A, Gadodia Market, Circle-28(1) Khari Baoli New Delhi Delhi AAMFM4846Q (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, Adv Date of Hearing 19.07.2018 Date of Pronoun…

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

…bove services provided by Kotak UK to the Appellant does not result in making available any technical knowledge, experience ... and as such the same should not qualify as Fees for Technical Services". The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Raymond Limited v DCIT (86 ITD 791) (Refer combined Paper Book Pg. Nos.48 to 79) held that services rendered by a UK lead manager in managing a GDR issue does not make available any technical knowledge, skill, experience, etc. The Tribunal observed that services could be considered as "making available" technical knowledge, experience, when the recipient is able to make use of the…

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

…not 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, then the income in question would be a…

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

…not 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, then the income in question would be a…

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

…not 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, then the income in question would be a…

ACIT 23(1), Mumbai vs. Nathpa Jhakri J.V., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 8536/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 40a

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM ITA No. 8537/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) ACIT 23(1), Vs. M/s. Nathpa Jhakri Joint Mumbai Venture Hincon House LBS Marg, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai – 400 083 PAN/GIR No. AAAAN1127C Appellant) .. Respondent) ITO 23(1)(1), Vs. M/s. Nathpa Jhakri Joint Mumbai Venture Hincon House LBS Marg, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai – 400 083 PAN/GIR No. AAAAN1127C Appellant) .. Respondent) ACIT 23(1), Vs. M/s. Nathpa Jhakri Joint Mumbai Venture Hincon House LBS Marg, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai – 400 083 PAN/GIR No. AAAAN1127C Appe…

Win Cable & Datacom P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (TDS) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 3635/MUM/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

Section 191Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

…f Income Tax (Appeals) on 01.03.2000. That is how the matter was carried to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 16 True it is that the Tribunal relied upon the order passed in the case of Raymond Limited v/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2003) 86 ITD 791 (Bom.), copy of which is at AnnexureF to the memo of Appeal. Further, the Income Tax Appeal No.246/2004 has been admitted by this Court on 31.01.2005 against the order passed in the case of Raymond Limited (supra) by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 24.04.2002. However, we do not find that the extreme stand of the Revenue and taken before u…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(2)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4736/MUM/2010[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)
Section 14ASection 195Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43D

…arisen in India in the hands of the non-residents. In the course of hearing reliance has been placed on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. [1980] 125 ITR 525 (SC) (ii) Ind. Telesoft P. Ltd. (267 ITR 725) (AAR) (iii) Raymond Ltd. vs. DCIT [2003] 86 ITD 791 (Mum-Trib.) On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon the order of authorities below. 24. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Factually speaking, the discussion in the assessment order clearly points out that the expenditure has been paid towards the services in connection with the issue of RIBs and are in the nature of advertisements,…

ACIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4598/MUM/2010[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)
Section 14ASection 195Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43D

…arisen in India in the hands of the non-residents. In the course of hearing reliance has been placed on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. [1980] 125 ITR 525 (SC) (ii) Ind. Telesoft P. Ltd. (267 ITR 725) (AAR) (iii) Raymond Ltd. vs. DCIT [2003] 86 ITD 791 (Mum-Trib.) On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon the order of authorities below. 24. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Factually speaking, the discussion in the assessment order clearly points out that the expenditure has been paid towards the services in connection with the issue of RIBs and are in the nature of advertisements,…