S India(P)Ltd. v. CIT

287 ITR 421Reported decision2006#3680 most cited

What is S India(P)Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The court determined that the label 'reimbursement' in an agreement does not determine the true nature of payments under a secondment agreement. Such payments must possess the characteristics of actual reimbursement to be treated as such, and the term itself is not decisive.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

S India(P)Ltd. v. CIT · 287 ITR 421 · section 195 · secondment agreement · reimbursement · nature of payments · withholding tax

Sections most often in play

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 201(1A)Section 40(a)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

Issues it is cited on

section 192(1)place of effective managementsection 203section 9(1)(ii)section 44daservice pesection 44dfees for included servicessection 9(1)(v)section 6(1)section 192interest under section 201(1a)

Judgments citing S India(P)Ltd. v. CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRLCE - 1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

ITA 1296/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Dr. Divya K.J., CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Suryanarayan, AR
Section 133ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…Singapore and it cannot be said that no income is embedded into such payment the payments have to be made after withholding tax ender section 195 of the Act" 16. Now coming to the issue of reimbursement once again reference is made to the decision of AT & S 287 ITR 421. The Hon'ble Court has observed as under in that case: "Though the term "reimbursement" is used in the agreements, the nature of payments under the secondment agreement has to satisfy the characteristic of reimbursement and that the term "reimbursement" in the agreement will not be determinative of the nature of payments. The term "reimbursement…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

ITA 1295/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Respondent by
Section 133ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…said that no income is embedded into such payment the payments have to be made after withholding tax ender section 195 of the Act" कर अधिकारी (अंतः TAX OFFICER 16. Now coming to the issue of reimbursement once again reference is made to the decision of AT & S 287 ITR 421. The Hon'ble Court has observed as under in that case: "Though the term "reimbursement" is used in the agreements, the nature of payments under the secondment agreement has to satisfy the characteristic of reimbursement and that the term "reimbursement" in the agreement will not be determinative of the nature of payments. The term "reimbursement"…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

ITA 1294/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Dr. Divya K.J., CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Suryanarayan, AR
Section 133ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…Singapore and it cannot be said that no income is embedded into such payment the payments have to be made after withholding tax ender section 195 of the Act" 16. Now coming to the issue of reimbursement once again reference is made to the decision of AT & S 287 ITR 421. The Hon'ble Court has observed as under in that case: "Though the term "reimbursement" is used in the agreements, the nature of payments under the secondment agreement has to satisfy the characteristic of reimbursement and that the term "reimbursement" in the agreement will not be determinative of the nature of payments. The term "reimbursement…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGLAURU, BENGALURU vs. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1242/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sharat Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…ontinue to have lien on his employment with the entity which deputes him. Entity seconding the employee is the employer as it retained the right over seconded employee is also held by Hon'ble AAR in case of AT & S India (P.) Ltd., In re [2006] 157 Taxman 198/ 287 ITR 421. 29.5 The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley & Co. (supra) were in the context of existence of service PE. This is clear from a reading of the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is as follows :— "As regards the question of deputation, an employee of MSCo when deputed to MSAS d…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PVT. LTD, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1241/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sharat Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…ontinue to have lien on his employment with the entity which deputes him. Entity seconding the employee is the employer as it retained the right over seconded employee is also held by Hon'ble AAR in case of AT & S India (P.) Ltd., In re [2006] 157 Taxman 198/ 287 ITR 421. 29.5 The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley & Co. (supra) were in the context of existence of service PE. This is clear from a reading of the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is as follows :— "As regards the question of deputation, an employee of MSCo when deputed to MSAS d…

DY CIT 11 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 6997/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy&F Shri Amarjit Singhdy. Commissioner Of Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-11(3)(1) 3Rd Floor, The Leela Room No. 204, Aayakar Galleria, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Andheri (E) Marine Lines Mumbai 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace2175M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Ajay Kumar Sharma
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…e persons deputed in India? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the decision of Hon'ble ARR in the case of Verizon Data Services India Pvt Ltd. (ARR No 856/2010) and AT & S India Pvt Ltd (2006) 287 ITR 421 wherein it was held that the reimbursement is in the nature of FTS and the fact that taxes are paid under the head 'Salaries' is of no consequence? 6. he appellant prays that the order of the Id. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored 7. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground…

ACIT CIRCLE-28(1), DELHI vs. SAM OVERSEAS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 169/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Sr. Advocate
Section 195

…:- 71 Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1695/Del/2020 & 169/Del/2021 (1) CIT s. Cooper Engineering Ltd. [68 ITR 457 (Bom.)] (ii) Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs. CIT [314 ITR 309 (SC)] (iii) Al Nisr Publishing [239 ITR 879 (AAR)] (iv) British Gas India Pvt. Ltd. in Re. [287 ITR 421], [239 ITR 879 (AAR)] 50.3 It is submitted that the aforesaid 'persons' to whom the commission had been paid are non-residents and does not have a PE in India. In fact it had been contended that the expenditure as had been incurred was for services rendered outside India. 50.4 However, the Assessing Officer in Para 6.6 of his order held that, c…

SAM OVERSEAS ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE- 24(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1695/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Sr. Advocate
Section 195

…:- 71 Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1695/Del/2020 & 169/Del/2021 (1) CIT s. Cooper Engineering Ltd. [68 ITR 457 (Bom.)] (ii) Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs. CIT [314 ITR 309 (SC)] (iii) Al Nisr Publishing [239 ITR 879 (AAR)] (iv) British Gas India Pvt. Ltd. in Re. [287 ITR 421], [239 ITR 879 (AAR)] 50.3 It is submitted that the aforesaid 'persons' to whom the commission had been paid are non-residents and does not have a PE in India. In fact it had been contended that the expenditure as had been incurred was for services rendered outside India. 50.4 However, the Assessing Officer in Para 6.6 of his order held that, c…

OWENS CORNING INSULATING SYSTEMS CANADA LP,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 461/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla a/wFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234Section 234BSection 254Section 9(1)(vii)

…s the employees continue to have lien on his employment with the entity which deputes him. Entity seconding the employee is the employer as it retained the right over seconded employee is also held by Hon 'ble AAR in case of AT & S India Pvt Ltd., reported in 287 ITR 421. 29.5 The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley (supra) were in the context of existence of service PE. This is clear from a reading of the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is as follows:- "As regards the question of deputation, an employee of MSCo when deputed to MSAS does not…

GOOGLE LLC (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GOOGLE INC.),CALIFORNIA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 167/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(It)A No. 167/Bang/2021 - Ay : 2010-11) It(It)A No. 688/Bang/2022 - Ay : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 9(1)(vii)

…as the employees continue to have lien on his employment with the entity which deputes him. Entity seconding the employee is the employer as it retained the right over seconded employee is also held by Hon’ble AAR in case of AT & S India Pvt Ltd., reported in 287 ITR 421. 29.5 The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley (supra) were in the context of existence of service PE. This is clear from a reading of the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is as follows:- “As regards the question of deputation, an employee of MSCo when deputed to MSAS does not…

M/S. YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-2, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2608/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…as the employees continue to have lien on his employment with the entity which deputes him. Entity seconding the employee is the employer as it retained the right over seconded employee is also held by Hon’ble AAR in case of AT & S India Pvt Ltd., reported in 287 ITR 421. 29.5 The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley (supra) were in the context of existence of service PE. This is clear from a reading of the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is as follows:- “As regards the question of deputation, an employee of MSCo when deputed to MSAS does not…

M/S. BIESSE MANUFACTURING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 338/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri, Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar K. Ganeshan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 92C

…as the employees continue to have lien on his employment with the entity which deputes him. Entity seconding the employee is the employer as it retained the right over seconded employee is also held by Hon’ble AAR in case of AT & S India Pvt Ltd., reported in 287 ITR 421. 29.5 The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley (supra) were in the context of existence of service PE. This is clear from a reading of the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is as follows:- “As regards the question of deputation, an employee of MSCo when deputed to MSAS does no…

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 92D

…as the employees continue to have lien on his employment with the entity which deputes him. Entity seconding the employee is the employer as it retained the right over seconded employee is also held by Hon’ble AAR in case of AT & S India Pvt Ltd., reported in 287 ITR 421. 14.22.1. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley (supra) were in the context of existence of service PE. This is clear from a reading of the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is as follows:- “As regards the question of deputation, an employee of MSCo when deputed to MSAS does…

M/S KENNAMETAL INC ,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the appeal for AY 2012-13

ITA 1658/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan &For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 143(3)

…with the entity which deputes him. Entity seconding the employee is the employer as it retained the right over M/s. Kennametal Inc., USA Technology Way Page 13 of 25 seconded employee is also held by Hon’ble AAR in case of AT & S India Pvt Ltd., reported in 287 ITR 421. 14.22.1. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley (supra) were in the context of existence of service PE. This is clear from a reading of the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is as follows:- “As regards the question of deputation, an employee of MSCo when deputed to MSAS doe…

M/S. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,CIRCLE- 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 369/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…as the employees continue to have lien on his employment with the entity which deputes him. Entity seconding the employee is the employer as it retained the right over seconded employee is also held by Hon’ble AAR in case of AT & S India Pvt Ltd., reported in 287 ITR 421. 29.5 The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley (supra) were in the context of existence of service PE. This is clear from a reading of the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is as follows:- “As regards the question of deputation, an employee of MSCo when deputed to MSAS does not…

M/S. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,CIRCLE- 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 368/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…as the employees continue to have lien on his employment with the entity which deputes him. Entity seconding the employee is the employer as it retained the right over seconded employee is also held by Hon’ble AAR in case of AT & S India Pvt Ltd., reported in 287 ITR 421. 29.5 The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley (supra) were in the context of existence of service PE. This is clear from a reading of the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is as follows:- “As regards the question of deputation, an employee of MSCo when deputed to MSAS does not…

M/S GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 367/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…as the employees continue to have lien on his employment with the entity which deputes him. Entity seconding the employee is the employer as it retained the right over seconded employee is also held by Hon’ble AAR in case of AT & S India Pvt Ltd., reported in 287 ITR 421. 29.5 The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley (supra) were in the context of existence of service PE. This is clear from a reading of the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is as follows:- “As regards the question of deputation, an employee of MSCo when deputed to MSAS does not…

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE- 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 366/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…as the employees continue to have lien on his employment with the entity which deputes him. Entity seconding the employee is the employer as it retained the right over seconded employee is also held by Hon’ble AAR in case of AT & S India Pvt Ltd., reported in 287 ITR 421. 29.5 The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley (supra) were in the context of existence of service PE. This is clear from a reading of the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is as follows:- “As regards the question of deputation, an employee of MSCo when deputed to MSAS does not…

M/S. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE- 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 365/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…as the employees continue to have lien on his employment with the entity which deputes him. Entity seconding the employee is the employer as it retained the right over seconded employee is also held by Hon’ble AAR in case of AT & S India Pvt Ltd., reported in 287 ITR 421. 29.5 The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley (supra) were in the context of existence of service PE. This is clear from a reading of the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is as follows:- “As regards the question of deputation, an employee of MSCo when deputed to MSAS does not…

M/S. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE- 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…as the employees continue to have lien on his employment with the entity which deputes him. Entity seconding the employee is the employer as it retained the right over seconded employee is also held by Hon’ble AAR in case of AT & S India Pvt Ltd., reported in 287 ITR 421. 29.5 The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley (supra) were in the context of existence of service PE. This is clear from a reading of the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is as follows:- “As regards the question of deputation, an employee of MSCo when deputed to MSAS does not…

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

S India(P)Ltd. v. CIT (287 ITR 421) — Cited in 32 Judgments | BharatTax