Titan Industries v. ITO

11 SOT 206Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#12014 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10ASection 10AASection 115JBSection 14ASection 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40(a)(ia)

Issues it is cited on

section 9(1)(vii)(b)section 9(l)(vii)make available clausedepreciation on softwaresection 10(35)fees for included servicescopyrighted articlesection 40a(ia)section 9(1)(vii)disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)section 70section 9(1)(vi)

Judgments citing Titan Industries v. ITO

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1262/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 096. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai - 600 096. Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

For Respondent: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

…case law paper book • Deputy/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD) vs Aspire Systems India (P.) Ltd [2023] 157 taxmann.com 699 (Chennai ITAT) reference in this regard is made to Page No. 381 (Para No. 12) of the case law paper book O Titan Industries v ITO (11 SOT 206 Bang.) O Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd v DCIT (91 ITD 133 Del.) O ITO v Bajaj Hindustan Ltd (47 SOT 74 Mum. (URO)) • Ajappa Integrated Project Management Consultants P. Ltd vs. ACIT (33 CCH 207 Chen) O Mahindra Holidays & Resorts (97 DTR (Chennai Trib) 393) • Aqua Omega Services P Ltd v ACIT (23 ITR Trib 191 Chen) - In respect of those payments ma…

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1207/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

…D) vs Aspire Systems India (P.) Ltd [2023] 157 taxmann.com - 18 - ITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207, 1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024 699 (Chennai ITAT) reference in this regard is made to Page No. 381 (Para No. 12) of the case law paper book o Titan Industries v ITO (11 SOT 206 Bang.) o Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd v DCIT (91 ITD 133 Del.) o ITO v Bajaj Hindustan Ltd (47 SOT 74 Mum. (URO)) o Ajappa Integrated Project Management Consultants P. Ltd vs. ACIT (33 CCH 207 Chen) o Mahindra Holidays & Resorts (97 DTR (Chennai Trib) 393) o Aqua Omega Services P Ltd v ACIT (23 ITR Trib 191 Chen) - In respect of those payments ma…

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1193/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

…D) vs Aspire Systems India (P.) Ltd [2023] 157 taxmann.com - 18 - ITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207, 1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024 699 (Chennai ITAT) reference in this regard is made to Page No. 381 (Para No. 12) of the case law paper book o Titan Industries v ITO (11 SOT 206 Bang.) o Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd v DCIT (91 ITD 133 Del.) o ITO v Bajaj Hindustan Ltd (47 SOT 74 Mum. (URO)) o Ajappa Integrated Project Management Consultants P. Ltd vs. ACIT (33 CCH 207 Chen) o Mahindra Holidays & Resorts (97 DTR (Chennai Trib) 393) o Aqua Omega Services P Ltd v ACIT (23 ITR Trib 191 Chen) - In respect of those payments ma…

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn.-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1783/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…herein the Gujarat High Court held that the source of income is outside India since assessee's customer work based outside India. Further, the Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the decision of Bangalore ITAT in the case of Titan Industries Ltd. 11 SOT 206 wherein it was held that when the customers of the company are located outside India, then the source is outside India. 25. In response, Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the observations made by the DRP and AO. 26. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. On going through the facts of the instant case, we observe that t…

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn.-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2390/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…herein the Gujarat High Court held that the source of income is outside India since assessee's customer work based outside India. Further, the Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the decision of Bangalore ITAT in the case of Titan Industries Ltd. 11 SOT 206 wherein it was held that when the customers of the company are located outside India, then the source is outside India. 25. In response, Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the observations made by the DRP and AO. 26. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. On going through the facts of the instant case, we observe that t…

M/S. Dmg Mori India Private Limited (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines and Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 165/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 165/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Dmg Mori India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines & The Deputy Services Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 3/1, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Kiadb, Peenya, 1St Stage, Circle – 11(1), Ward No. 1, Hmt, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aabcd0003E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vikram, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Cit(Appeals) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act (Rs.2,76,24,000/-) 2.1. Disallowance U/S.40(A)(I) Unwarranted: The Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Payments Made To M/S R.S Mail Limited , United Kingdom

For Appellant: Shri Vikram, Advocate
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

…ort of products in the Territory, such services are for the purpose of earning income from outside India and hence payment for the same does not accrue in India by the virtue of exclusion clause in S.9(1)(vii)(b). Reliance is placed on Titan Industries Vs ITO 11 SOT 206 (Bang) and CIT Vs Aktiengesellschaft Kuhnle Kopp and Kausch (262 ITR 513 (Mad)) 3. S.234B & 234C excess interest charged 3.1 The CIT(A) ought to have specifically adjudicated the grounds related to S.234B & S.234C and the excess interest u/S.234B & S.234C charged by the AO ought to be deleted. 4. Short credit of TDS 4.1. The CIT(A) ought to have d…

M/S Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/O Mtr Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (It), 100 Feet Inner Ring Road, Asmnt, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Aabco4087B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 17/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143 (3) By The Ld.Dcit, Asmnt, Circle-2(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. Barred By Limitation The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao') Is Barred By Limitation In View Of The Express Provisions Of Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Wherein, The Order Should Be Passed Within One Month From The End Of The Month In Which Dispute

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate
Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

…i Securities (India) (P) Ltd vs DCIT, Circle-5, Kolkata(2016) 71 taxmann.com 142 (Kolkata Trib)  Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd vs DCIT (2004) 91 ITD 133  DIT Vs. Lufthansa Cargo India (2015) 60 taxmann.com 187 (Delhi)  Titan Industries Ltd. Vs. ITO [2007] (11 SOT 206) (Bangalore Trib.)  WNS North America Inc vs ADIT (Intl Taxn)-2(2), Mumbai(2012) 28 taxmann.com 173 (Mumbai Trib) 2.1.3 The Authorized Representative are of the opinion that since the corresponding technical knowledge possessed by Shri Mithun Sachdeva is not made available, as per Article 12 of India Singapore DIM, the same cannot be categorized…

ACIT 27(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Ramesh P. Singh, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2012-2013

ITA 974/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The A.C.I.T. 27(3), Shri Ramesh P. Singh, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Prop. Of M/S Aditya Investment Vashi Railway Station Complex & Exim Trade (Co.), Vashi, Vs. Plot No. 23, Pallvi Building, Navi Mumbai Maneklal Estate, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai - 400086 Pan: Aagps2739C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 5(2)(b)Section 7Section 9(1)(i)

…o provisions. Royalty or fess for technical services would not accrue in India if it is for the purpose of making or earning any income from any source outside India. Hon’ble Tribunals in CIT vs. KKK West Germany (262 ITR 513 (Mad)., Titan Industries vs. ITO (11 SOT 206 (Bang.) and Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd. DCIT 91 ITD 133 (Del.) have taken a stand that as the fees are paid to non-residents for the purpose of procuring export orders outside India, it is for the purpose of earning from a source outside India. Therefore, the fact is even if the commission is considered as Royalty or fees for technical Services…

Titan Industries v. ITO (11 SOT 206) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax