“Section 9(1)”

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DDIT It-3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

hold that income arose in India in terms of Section 5 of the Act as the CIT(A) only referred to Section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act. Section 9 of the Act only deals with income which is „deemed to accrue or arise‟ in India and, therefore, even ... arise‟. However, Article 12(3) of DTAA provided a narrower definition of „royalties‟ as compared to the one contained in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, the meaning and purport of „arise‟ as used in Article 12(2) or „arising in a contracting state

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (Int. Taxation) - 3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

hold that income arose in India in terms of Section 5 of the Act as the CIT(A) only referred to Section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act. Section 9 of the Act only deals with income which is „deemed to accrue or arise‟ in India and, therefore, even ... arise‟. However, Article 12(3) of DTAA provided a narrower definition of „royalties‟ as compared to the one contained in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, the meaning and purport of „arise‟ as used in Article 12(2) or „arising in a contracting state

ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

hold that income arose in India in terms of Section 5 of the Act as the CIT(A) only referred to Section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Act. Section 9 of the Act only deals with income which is „deemed to accrue or arise‟ in India and, therefore, even ... arise‟. However, Article 12(3) of DTAA provided a narrower definition of „royalties‟ as compared to the one contained in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, the meaning and purport of „arise‟ as used in Article 12(2) or „arising in a contracting state

Michael Page International Pte Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Tax) -3(2)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 751/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Michael Page International Pte Limited, C/O.Michael Page International Recruitment Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, 2North Avenue, Maker Maxity, Bandra Kurla Compelx, Mumbai -400 051 Pan:Aahcm-6965-A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle – 3(2)(2) Mumbai, Room No.X. 16Th Floor, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point,Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Pratik Shah & Ms.Riddhi Maru ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23/02/2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Assessment Order By Raising Following Grounds:

conclusion that fees received by the assessee for providing business support services is in fact managerial and consultancy service as defined in section 9(1)(vii)(c), Explanation -2. Thus, the Assessing Officer held that the fees paid by Indian entity to the assessee is covered under “fees for included ... India u/s. 9(1)(i) of the Act. The amount charged was thus, held to be fees for technical services as per section 9(1)(vii) (c) r.w.s. Article 12(4) of the India – Singapore DTAA. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.144/Mum/2021 (supra

Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited (in Liquidation), Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) (It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.509/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2015-16) Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited. (In Liquidation) C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028 Pan: Aaccb-4438-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-1(2)(1),Mumbai, 18Th Floor, Room No.1811, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31/01/2022 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2 2. Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That She Is Not Pressing Ground No.1 Of Appeal Challenging Reassessment Proceedings.

Indian Stock Exchanges, the entire management and operations of the depository is admittedly in India. Let us, in this backdrop, look at Section 9(1)(i) which provides that “all incomes accruing or arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from any business connection in India, or though or from ... mind the fact that this circular was issued in view of the apprehensions that on account of Explanation 5 having been inserted in Section 9(1)(i) “an extended application of the provisions of the Explanation may result in taxation of dividend income declared by a foreign company outside India

M/S Owens Coming Inc, Mumbai vs. The DCIT(Intl Tax) Circle 3(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 459/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Owens-Corning Inc. C/O.Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd. 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan:Aaaco-3242-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle – 3(2)(2) Mumbai, Room No.X. 16Th Floor, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bhalla & Ms. Megha Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23/02/2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Solitary Issue By Way Of Following Grounds Of Appeal:

rentals received by the appellant of Rs.5,31,93,808 during the year under consideration by treating the same as 'royalty' as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') as well as Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered between India ... treated the said receipts as royalty in terms of Article 12(3) of the DTAA between India and USA and as per section 9(1)(vii) read with Explanation 5 of the Income-tax Act and brought it to tax accordingly. The assessee, on the other hand, maintains that

M/S. Warner Bros.Distributing Inc., Mumbai vs. ACIT (Intl Tax)-4(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed pro-tanto

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalvkvkla- 1721@Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2019&20½ ..... Vihykfkhz/Applicant Warner Bros. Distributing Inc. C/Of The Act Warner Bros. Pictures India Pvt. Ltd. 407, 4Th Floor, Windfall, Sahar Plaza Complex, Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar Andheri East, Mumbai-400 059 Pan No. Aaacw6559R Cuke Vs. ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Room No.1611, 16Th Floor, Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

thus, is taxable in India. The learned DR further submits that the assessee has business connection in India within the meaning of section 9(1)(i) of the Act. 6. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. The learned

The Acropolis Co.Op.Hsg.Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Acropolis Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. Dy. Cit, Cpc B-31, Acropolis Little Gibs Road, Malbar Bengaluru, Karnataka Vs. Hill, Mumbai-400 006

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM The

Shell Informaation Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

India would fall within the expression 'fees for technical services' as appearing in article,. 13(4)'(c) of the DTAA read with section 9(1)(vii) of the said Act. While doing so the Tribunal, inter alia, found that the assessee company was an international reinsurance intermediary (broker

Shellinformation Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

India would fall within the expression 'fees for technical services' as appearing in article,. 13(4)'(c) of the DTAA read with section 9(1)(vii) of the said Act. While doing so the Tribunal, inter alia, found that the assessee company was an international reinsurance intermediary (broker

Owens Corning Composite Materials Llc, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (It)- Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6804/मुं/ 2019 ("न.व. 2016-17) Owens-Corning Composite Materials Llc C/O.Owens Cornining (India) Pvt. Ltd. 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan:Aabco-4236-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle – 3(2)(2) Mumbai, Room No.X. 16Th Floor, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point,Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bhalla ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short “The Act”] For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Two Grounds. In Ground No.1 Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Assailed The Findings Of Assessing Officer In Treating Amount Received On Reimbursement Of Software Supplied By The Assessee To Its Indian Subsidiary As ‘Royalty’. In Ground No.2 Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Assailed Short Credit Of Tds.

Representative further submits that the payments received by the assessee from its Indian AE are in the nature of royalty as defined in section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The ld.Departmental Representative submits that the case of the assessee does not fall in any of the categories as mentioned ... copyrighted article, such payment is not in the nature of ‘Royalty’, hence, the same is not taxable under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 6 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Engineering Analysis (supra) while dealing with bunch of appeals has grouped

Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Tax) 4(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalrenaissance Services Bv, C/O Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. 303A, 304, Fulcrum, B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Sahar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099 Pan: Aaecr4995E ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)-4(1)(1), 17Th Floor, Room No. 1712, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 ..... Respondent

Indian hotels under the Training and Computer Systems Agreement (TCSA) were not in the nature of fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as well as under Article 12(5) of the India-Netherlands tax treaty ... reservation systems property management systems and other systems to the Indian hotels under the TCSA were not in the nature of royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act respectively as well as under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands tax treaty: 3. The Ld' CIT(A) erred

Sr Technics Switzerland Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It)-4(2)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyals.R. Technics Switzerland Limited. C/O. B-206, Citipoint, A.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059. Pan: Aalcs3475M ...... Appellant Vs. Acit (International Taxation), Range- 4(2) (2), Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Dhanesh Bafna / Sh. Pratik Shah Respondent By : Ms. Surabhi Sharma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/11/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Acit(It-4(2)(2), Mumbai, [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Acit’] Dated 24.09.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144(C)(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

erred in concluding that the Liaison Office (LO) of the Appellant constitutes a business connection of Appellant in India as per provisions of Section 9(1)(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (IT Act). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the - case ... claiming benefit of DTAA saying that the balance services are not in the nature of technical services and hence neither taxable under section 9(1) (vii) of the Income 5 ITA No. 6616/Mum/2018-S.R. Technics Switzerland Limited. Tax Act, 1961 nor Article 12 the DTAA. It also claims that it does