Steffen Robertson and Kirsten Consulting Engineers and Scientists v. CIT

230 ITR 206Reported decision1998#4823 most cited

What is Steffen Robertson and Kirsten Consulting Engineers and Scientists v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure is liable for TDS under section 195 if the benefit derived from it is utilized in India, irrespective of where the services were rendered or if the non-resident has a Permanent Establishment in India.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Steffen Robertson and Kirsten · Section 195 · TDS · non-resident · services rendered abroad · benefit utilized in India · Permanent Establishment · AAR ruling

Judgments citing Steffen Robertson and Kirsten Consulting Engineers and Scientists v. CIT

DCIT, Chennai vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years

ITA 1367/CHNY/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1668 To 1670/Chny/2011 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 To 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner- V. M/S.Royal Sundaram – Of Income Tax, Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcr 7106 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Sr.St. Counsel Assessee By : Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, Adv. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023

For Appellant: Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M.Swaminathan
Section 14ASection 37Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ !ायपीठ, चे$ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, माननीय "ाियक सद" एवं *ी मंजूनाथा .जी, माननीय लेखा सद+ के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1668 to 1670/Chny/2011 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner- v. M/s.Royal Sundaram – of Income Tax, Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 002. [PAN: AABCR 7106 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department by : Mr.M.S…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years

ITA 1670/CHNY/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1668 To 1670/Chny/2011 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 To 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner- V. M/S.Royal Sundaram – Of Income Tax, Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcr 7106 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Sr.St. Counsel Assessee By : Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, Adv. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023

For Appellant: Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M.Swaminathan
Section 14ASection 37Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ !ायपीठ, चे$ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, माननीय "ाियक सद" एवं *ी मंजूनाथा .जी, माननीय लेखा सद+ के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1668 to 1670/Chny/2011 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner- v. M/s.Royal Sundaram – of Income Tax, Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 002. [PAN: AABCR 7106 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department by : Mr.M.S…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years

ITA 1669/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1668 To 1670/Chny/2011 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 To 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner- V. M/S.Royal Sundaram – Of Income Tax, Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcr 7106 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Sr.St. Counsel Assessee By : Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, Adv. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023

For Appellant: Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M.Swaminathan
Section 14ASection 37Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ !ायपीठ, चे$ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, माननीय "ाियक सद" एवं *ी मंजूनाथा .जी, माननीय लेखा सद+ के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1668 to 1670/Chny/2011 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner- v. M/s.Royal Sundaram – of Income Tax, Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 002. [PAN: AABCR 7106 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department by : Mr.M.S…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years

ITA 1668/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1668 To 1670/Chny/2011 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 To 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner- V. M/S.Royal Sundaram – Of Income Tax, Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcr 7106 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Sr.St. Counsel Assessee By : Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, Adv. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023

For Appellant: Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M.Swaminathan
Section 14ASection 37Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ !ायपीठ, चे$ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, माननीय "ाियक सद" एवं *ी मंजूनाथा .जी, माननीय लेखा सद+ के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1668 to 1670/Chny/2011 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner- v. M/s.Royal Sundaram – of Income Tax, Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 002. [PAN: AABCR 7106 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department by : Mr.M.S…

DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 468/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…The AO observed that CBDT circular no. 786/2000 relied upon by the assessee is not applicable in the instant case. The AO relied upon decision of Hon’ble AAR Ruling in the case of Steffen Robertson and Kirsten Consulting Engineers and Scientists v. CIT (1998) 230 ITR 206 wherein it was held that what is crucial for bringing to tax said fee for technical know how is place where the said services are utilized and not the place where the services were rendered.The learned AO was also of the view that explanation to Section 9(1)(vii) inserted by Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976 clearly stat…

DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 467/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…The AO observed that CBDT circular no. 786/2000 relied upon by the assessee is not applicable in the instant case. The AO relied upon decision of Hon’ble AAR Ruling in the case of Steffen Robertson and Kirsten Consulting Engineers and Scientists v. CIT (1998) 230 ITR 206 wherein it was held that what is crucial for bringing to tax said fee for technical know how is place where the said services are utilized and not the place where the services were rendered.The learned AO was also of the view that explanation to Section 9(1)(vii) inserted by Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976 clearly stat…

DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 466/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…The AO observed that CBDT circular no. 786/2000 relied upon by the assessee is not applicable in the instant case. The AO relied upon decision of Hon’ble AAR Ruling in the case of Steffen Robertson and Kirsten Consulting Engineers and Scientists v. CIT (1998) 230 ITR 206 wherein it was held that what is crucial for bringing to tax said fee for technical know how is place where the said services are utilized and not the place where the services were rendered.The learned AO was also of the view that explanation to Section 9(1)(vii) inserted by Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976 clearly stat…

DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 465/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…The AO observed that CBDT circular no. 786/2000 relied upon by the assessee is not applicable in the instant case. The AO relied upon decision of Hon’ble AAR Ruling in the case of Steffen Robertson and Kirsten Consulting Engineers and Scientists v. CIT (1998) 230 ITR 206 wherein it was held that what is crucial for bringing to tax said fee for technical know how is place where the said services are utilized and not the place where the services were rendered.The learned AO was also of the view that explanation to Section 9(1)(vii) inserted by Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976 clearly stat…

M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 422/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…The AO observed that CBDT circular no. 786/2000 relied upon by the assessee is not applicable in the instant case. The AO relied upon decision of Hon’ble AAR Ruling in the case of Steffen Robertson and Kirsten Consulting Engineers and Scientists v. CIT (1998) 230 ITR 206 wherein it was held that what is crucial for bringing to tax said fee for technical know how is place where the said services are utilized and not the place where the services were rendered.The learned AO was also of the view that explanation to Section 9(1)(vii) inserted by Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976 clearly stat…

M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 421/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…The AO observed that CBDT circular no. 786/2000 relied upon by the assessee is not applicable in the instant case. The AO relied upon decision of Hon’ble AAR Ruling in the case of Steffen Robertson and Kirsten Consulting Engineers and Scientists v. CIT (1998) 230 ITR 206 wherein it was held that what is crucial for bringing to tax said fee for technical know how is place where the said services are utilized and not the place where the services were rendered.The learned AO was also of the view that explanation to Section 9(1)(vii) inserted by Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976 clearly stat…

M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 420/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…The AO observed that CBDT circular no. 786/2000 relied upon by the assessee is not applicable in the instant case. The AO relied upon decision of Hon’ble AAR Ruling in the case of Steffen Robertson and Kirsten Consulting Engineers and Scientists v. CIT (1998) 230 ITR 206 wherein it was held that what is crucial for bringing to tax said fee for technical know how is place where the said services are utilized and not the place where the services were rendered.The learned AO was also of the view that explanation to Section 9(1)(vii) inserted by Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976 clearly stat…

M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 419/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…The AO observed that CBDT circular no. 786/2000 relied upon by the assessee is not applicable in the instant case. The AO relied upon decision of Hon’ble AAR Ruling in the case of Steffen Robertson and Kirsten Consulting Engineers and Scientists v. CIT (1998) 230 ITR 206 wherein it was held that what is crucial for bringing to tax said fee for technical know how is place where the said services are utilized and not the place where the services were rendered.The learned AO was also of the view that explanation to Section 9(1)(vii) inserted by Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976 clearly stat…

JCIT (OSD), Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1795/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, (Osd), Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034 Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri.Homi Rajvangh, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

…adverse decision of the ITAT, the matter has been taken in appeal to the Honble High Court. 5 The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the ratio of the ruling of the AAR in the case of Steffen Robertson and Kirsten Consulting Engineers & Scientists [1998] 230 ITR 206 wherein it has been held that even if the payment to non residents have been made for services rendered abroad, if the benefits thereof are derived in India, then 40(a)(i) would be applicable. 5.1 The learned CIT(A) has therefore erred in holding that Section 40(a)(i) is not attracted in the case of expenses of the nature of content development c…

JCIT (OSD), Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1794/CHNY/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, (Osd), Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034 Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri.Homi Rajvangh, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

…adverse decision of the ITAT, the matter has been taken in appeal to the Honble High Court. 5 The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the ratio of the ruling of the AAR in the case of Steffen Robertson and Kirsten Consulting Engineers & Scientists [1998] 230 ITR 206 wherein it has been held that even if the payment to non residents have been made for services rendered abroad, if the benefits thereof are derived in India, then 40(a)(i) would be applicable. 5.1 The learned CIT(A) has therefore erred in holding that Section 40(a)(i) is not attracted in the case of expenses of the nature of content development c…

JCIT (OSD), Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1793/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, (Osd), Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034 Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri.Homi Rajvangh, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

…adverse decision of the ITAT, the matter has been taken in appeal to the Honble High Court. 5 The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the ratio of the ruling of the AAR in the case of Steffen Robertson and Kirsten Consulting Engineers & Scientists [1998] 230 ITR 206 wherein it has been held that even if the payment to non residents have been made for services rendered abroad, if the benefits thereof are derived in India, then 40(a)(i) would be applicable. 5.1 The learned CIT(A) has therefore erred in holding that Section 40(a)(i) is not attracted in the case of expenses of the nature of content development c…

ACIT 18(1), Mumbai vs. Dezens Products, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5503/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 40

…ave Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between themselves. According to Article XIV of DTAA between India and Australia the professional fee paid will not taxable in India. (ii) The decision relied upon by the Assessing Officer i.e, SRK Consulting Engineers 230 ITR 206(AAR) is not applicable to the case of the appellant. In the cited case the services of SRK Consulting Engineers were utilised in India by TISCO in a business or profession carried on by the payer in India for the purpose of earning any income from a source in India. However in the present case the services of the non-resident entity are utilized…

ACIT, Chennai vs. West Asia Maritime Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1545/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.N.Gopikrishna, JCIT
Section 115VSection 195Section 195(2)Section 260ASection 40Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(2)

…ablishment of the non-resident and also the place in which the service was rendered. 3.4 The CIT(A) ought to have followed the decision of Authority on Advance Rulings in the case of Steffen, Robertson and Kirsten Consulting Engineers and Scientists Vs. CIT. 230 ITR 206 where it was held that an expenditure shall be considered for TDS u/s.195 if the benefits derived out of the above expenditure is utilized in India. 3.5 The CIT(A) erred in not holding that the assessee ought to have deducted tax at source on the brokerage paid to the non-residents and in any case, it was not open for the assessee to conclude su…

ACIT, Chennai vs. West Asia Maritime Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 934/CHNY/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.N.Gopikrishna, JCIT
Section 115VSection 195Section 195(2)Section 260ASection 40Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(2)

…ablishment of the non-resident and also the place in which the service was rendered. 3.4 The CIT(A) ought to have followed the decision of Authority on Advance Rulings in the case of Steffen, Robertson and Kirsten Consulting Engineers and Scientists Vs. CIT. 230 ITR 206 where it was held that an expenditure shall be considered for TDS u/s.195 if the benefits derived out of the above expenditure is utilized in India. 3.5 The CIT(A) erred in not holding that the assessee ought to have deducted tax at source on the brokerage paid to the non-residents and in any case, it was not open for the assessee to conclude su…

Joint DIT(It)-2, Mumbai vs. Saipem S.A., Mumbai

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

ITA 1726/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & C.N.Prasad (Jm)

Section 195Section 9

…services and not reimbursement of expenses and, therefore, the payment of fees had to be made by the Indian company only after withholding tax u/s 195. 4.6 It has also been held in the case of Steffen, Robertson and Kirsten Consulting Engineers & Scientists (230 ITR 206) by the Authority for Advance Rulings that there was no difference between the fees for engineering services and the fees relatable to living allowances or traveling charges of the employees who would rendered the services. 3 M/s. Saipem S.A. 4.7 It has been held in the case of Cochin Refineries Ltd. ( 222 ITR 354) by the Kerala High Court that…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 859/CHNY/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. M.M.Bhusari, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 148Section 40

…e Appellant submits that the payment was for business services are liable to be taxed in India in the absence of a P.E. b) The learned AO ought to have appreciated that the AAR ruling in Steffen, Robertson And Kristen consulting Enginess and Scientists Vs CIT 230 ITR 206 relates to a case which involved rendering technical consultancy services. The Learned AD ought to have appreciated the facts of the case referred by him are entirely different from that of the Appellant. The decision he ought to have known related to a resident of a country with which India had no DTAA. c) The learned AO ought to have appreciate…

Steffen Robertson and Kirsten Consulting Engineers and Scientists v. CIT (230 ITR 206) — Cited in 24 Judgments | BharatTax