UK Treaty (v). Metchem Canada Inc. v. DCIT

42 SOT 264Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#15891 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing UK Treaty (v). Metchem Canada Inc. v. DCIT

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (IT)1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

…T - 129 ITD 145 (at Paras 7 & 8.5) (SB - Ahd) - Sec 80HHE (iv). Standard Chartered Bank v. IAC - 39 ITD 57 (Mum) - Sec 36(1)(viia) - UK Treaty (v). Metchem Canada Inc. v. DCIT - 284 ITR (AT) 196 (Mum) - Sec 44C (vi). Rolls Royce Industrial Power Ltd v. ACIT - 42 SOT 264 (Del) - Sec 44AD -UK Treaty DaimlerChrysler India - 29 SOT 502 (Pune) - Sec 79 OTHER CASES-COVERED IN FAVOUR (vii). Citibank N. A. v. ACIT ITA Nos. 5275 & 5276/Mum/2001 (at para 30) (Mum) - Sec 40(a)(i) (viii). DCIT v. Lazard India (P.) Ltd - 41 SOT 72 (Mum) - Sec 40(a)(i) (ix). Central Bank of India v. DCIT - 42 SOT 450 (Mum) - Sec 40(a)(i) (x).…

GENERAL MOTORS OVERSEAS CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 3(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 381/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y : 2004-05 :

For Appellant: S.K. Aggarwal Advocate For AssesseeFor Respondent: Avinish Tiwari DR for Revenue
Section 234BSection 44DSection 92

…considered as fees for included services/ fees for technical services. Our attention was drawn to the decision of 32 General Motors Overseas Corporation ITA Nos.1282/Mum/2009, 2787 &1986/Mum/2014 & 381/Mum/2018 Delhi tribunal , in the matter of Rolls Royce , 42 SOT 264 ( supra) paragraph 44-45 to the following effect: “40. When we look at Article 7.1, then it is manifest that as the assessee carries on business in India through a permanent establishment situated in India, the “profits” of the assessee may be taxed in India “but only so much of them as is directly or indirectly attributable to that permanent esta…

GENERAL MOTORS OVERSEAS CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. DDIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2787/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y : 2004-05 :

For Appellant: S.K. Aggarwal Advocate For AssesseeFor Respondent: Avinish Tiwari DR for Revenue
Section 234BSection 44DSection 92

…considered as fees for included services/ fees for technical services. Our attention was drawn to the decision of 32 General Motors Overseas Corporation ITA Nos.1282/Mum/2009, 2787 &1986/Mum/2014 & 381/Mum/2018 Delhi tribunal , in the matter of Rolls Royce , 42 SOT 264 ( supra) paragraph 44-45 to the following effect: “40. When we look at Article 7.1, then it is manifest that as the assessee carries on business in India through a permanent establishment situated in India, the “profits” of the assessee may be taxed in India “but only so much of them as is directly or indirectly attributable to that permanent esta…

GENERAL MOTORS OVERSEAS CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. DDIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1986/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y : 2004-05 :

For Appellant: S.K. Aggarwal Advocate For AssesseeFor Respondent: Avinish Tiwari DR for Revenue
Section 234BSection 44DSection 92

…considered as fees for included services/ fees for technical services. Our attention was drawn to the decision of 32 General Motors Overseas Corporation ITA Nos.1282/Mum/2009, 2787 &1986/Mum/2014 & 381/Mum/2018 Delhi tribunal , in the matter of Rolls Royce , 42 SOT 264 ( supra) paragraph 44-45 to the following effect: “40. When we look at Article 7.1, then it is manifest that as the assessee carries on business in India through a permanent establishment situated in India, the “profits” of the assessee may be taxed in India “but only so much of them as is directly or indirectly attributable to that permanent esta…

GENERAL MOTORS OVERSEAS CORPORATION vs. ACIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1282/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y : 2004-05 :

For Appellant: S.K. Aggarwal Advocate For AssesseeFor Respondent: Avinish Tiwari DR for Revenue
Section 234BSection 44DSection 92

…considered as fees for included services/ fees for technical services. Our attention was drawn to the decision of 32 General Motors Overseas Corporation ITA Nos.1282/Mum/2009, 2787 &1986/Mum/2014 & 381/Mum/2018 Delhi tribunal , in the matter of Rolls Royce , 42 SOT 264 ( supra) paragraph 44-45 to the following effect: “40. When we look at Article 7.1, then it is manifest that as the assessee carries on business in India through a permanent establishment situated in India, the “profits” of the assessee may be taxed in India “but only so much of them as is directly or indirectly attributable to that permanent esta…

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT. SPL. RG. 27, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7891/MUM/2004[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 115JSection 90(2)

…of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) Rajeev Sureshbhai Gajwani v/s ACIT, 129 ITD 145; ii) Standard Chartered Bank v/s IAC, 39 ITD 145; iii) Metchem Canada Inc. v/s DCIT, 284 itr (AT) 196; iv) Rolls Royce Indl. Power Ltd. v/s ACIT, 42 SOT 264; and v) Daimler Chrysler India, 29 SOT 502. 12. The learned Departmental Representative strongly opposing admission of the additional ground submitted, assessee having claimed deduction under section 44C of the Act and having not contested the issue either before the Assessing Officer or before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), cannot raise the…

UK Treaty (v). Metchem Canada Inc. v. DCIT (42 SOT 264) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax