“business connection”

International TaxSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(i)833 judgments

The decision most relied on for business connection is Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT (288 ITR 408), cited in 394 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on business connection

Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT

288 ITR 408 · 2007 · Supreme Court

394

citing judgments

Income from offshore supply of goods and services is not taxable in India if the entire transaction, including transfer of ownership and payments, occurs outside India.

CIT v. Toshoku Ltd.

125 ITR 525 · 1980 · Supreme Court

270

citing judgments

A non-resident commission agent is not chargeable to tax in India on commission income if no business operations are carried out in India. Consequently, no TDS is required under Section 195 on such payments.

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT

239 ITR 587 · 1999 · Supreme Court

243

citing judgments

The Supreme Court lays down principles for deducting tax at source (TDS) under Section 195 on payments to non-residents, including aspects of income deemed taxable in India and the application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) under Section 90.

Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT

95 ITD 269 · 2005 · High Court

213

citing judgments

Revenue must demonstrate the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) of a foreign enterprise in India, including establishing that transactions underlying a Dependent Agent PE were not at arm's length. Income from the sale of goods is not taxable in India if title and risk in the goods pass outside India.

CIT v. R.D. Aggarwal and Co.

56 ITR 20 · 1965 · Supreme Court

156

citing judgments

A 'business connection' for non-residents requires a real and intimate relation between their trading activities outside India and activities within India, contributing directly or indirectly to their earnings. The Supreme Court assigned a wide meaning to this term.

CIT v. Faizan Shoes (P.) Ltd.

367 ITR 155 · 2014 · High Court

139

citing judgments

Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source on export agency commission paid to a non-resident does not apply if the non-resident's income is not taxable in India under section 9(1), such as when the agent operates outside India without a permanent establishment or business connection in India.

Set Satellite Pte Ltd. v. CIT

307 ITR 205 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

If a Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment (DAPE) is remunerated at arm's length based on transfer pricing principles, no further profits can be attributed to the foreign enterprise. The principles of profit attribution under DTAA Article 7 are pari-materia to Section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

IT Solution Inc. v. ADIT

86 Taxmann.com 240 · 2017 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Once the arm's length principle has been satisfied under transfer pricing provisions, no further profit can be attributed to a person even if they have a permanent establishment in India. A reassessment notice based solely on the allegation of a permanent establishment is unsustainable if the arm's length price procedure has been followed.

Judgments citing business connection

The ACIT, Ernakulam vs. M/S.Taj Kerala Hotels & Resorts Ltd, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 92/COCH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Avneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40A(2)(b)

made to the foreign travel agents on the ground that no TDS was made on the foreign payments by holding that there is a business connection in the payments made to the non-resident which is liable for tax deduction at source u/s. 195 of the Act. The AO also

Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT Circle Intl. Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2358/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR

Section 115ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(i)

section 9(1)(i) of the Act deems income based on all income accruing or arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from any business connection in India, or through or from any property in India, or through or from any asset or source of income in India, or through

M/S. La Opala RG Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1) [Formerly JCIT, Range-12, Kolkata ]

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

ITA 1865/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 11(1) M/S La Opala Rg Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 8Th Floor, Premises No.803 & 804 Eco Centre, Em-4, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700091, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl5569J Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Tulsyan & Deepak Mundhra, Tanmoy Kar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Tulsyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR

Section 133(6)Section 37

Section 9(1)(i) of the Act. It further contested that agent to whom commission was paid, is not having any business connection in India, or through or from any property in India, or through or from any asset or source of income in India, or through the transfer

Eurofins Peenya Resources Private Limited (Formerly Known As Eurofins Advinus Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1114/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

arises only when income is chargeable to tax in India as per the Act. The recipient does not have any business connection in India and therefore such sum is not liable to tax in India. The assessee also referred to DTAA Article 13(4)(c) and stated that mere rendering

M/S. Eurofins Peenya Resources Private Limited(Formerly Know As Eurofins Advinus Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1113/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Sri Arumuga Cottspin Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. The ACIT, CC-I, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1098/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1098/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Sri Arumuga Cottspin Pvt. Ltd. Acit बनाम Sf No.919/6, No.2, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-1, / Vs. Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore-642 104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajcs-5065-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) - Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

confirmed the statement given by Shri G. Ganesh. To verify the cash sales, summons was issued to the three buyers who denied having any business connection with the assessee. The assessee furnished a list of 930 parties to whom cash sales were purportedly made. Out of the same, sample

Sri Mahasakthi Mills Limited, Coimbatore vs. The ACIT, CC-I, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1059/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1059/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sri Mahasakthi Mills Limited Acit बनाम/ No.95/13, Vyshnav Building, Central Circle-1, Opp. Kg Cinemas, Race Course Road Coimbatore. Vs. Coimbatore-641 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcs-2111-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 69A

recorded from him wherein he furnished the cash flows. To verify the same, summons was issued to the three buyers who denied having any business connection with the assessee. The assessee furnished a list of 418 parties to whom cash sales were purportedly made. Out of the same, sample

Kreuz Challenger Pte Ltd, Singapure vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle2(1)(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2373/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Kreuz Challenger Pte Ltd., Vs Acit, 2, Venture Drive, International Taxation #24-01 Vision Exchange, Circle 2(1)(2), Singapore , 999999 New Delhi. Pan : Aahck3082A

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms C. Chandra Kanta, CIT-DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 197Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

provides that income is to be deemed to have accrued or arising in India if the income is accruing directly or indirectly through any business connection in India or from any property in India or from any asset or source of income in India or any capital asset situated ... crucial words in Section 9(1) to the effect that “all income accruing or arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from any business connection” occurred in Section 42 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 as well. The said section came up for consideration before this Court in Anglo- French

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Nungambakkam vs. Idfc Limited, Teynampet

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

ITA 817/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 35DSection 80C

bonds clearly prescribes that the end use of the proceeds realized from issue of such bonds should be for “infrastructure lending” clearly establishes the business connection with the assessee’s business and drew our attention to Annexure 11 (section 80CCF notification) kept at page 476 of assessee’s paper-book ... business of money lending and the proceeds realized from issue of such bonds is undisputedly for the “infrastructure lending”, which establishes the business connection with the assessee’s business which fact is evident from the prospectus issued by the assessee and notification u/s.80CCF and therefore, it is allowable deduction

Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited, Chennai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), International Taxation, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1680/CHNY/2024[AY 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(viii)

included in the total income of the non- resident, whether or not,- (i) The non-resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India; or (ii) The non-resident has rendered services in India. To the above extent, all the grounds of appeal raised

Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited, Chennai vs. The Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle 2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1676/CHNY/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(viii)

Idfc Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT-Range-II, Chennai

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

ITA 1263/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 35DSection 80C

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Allsec Technologies Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1662/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1255/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1662/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit M/S. Allsec Technologies Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1(1), 560, 562, 7H Century Plaza, Vs. Chennai. Teynampet, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aacca-5106-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) - Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 & 2011-12 Has Common Issues. First We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2010-11 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 31-01-2019 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Rs.162.46 Lacs to M/s Novatel Ltd. However, no TDS was deducted against the same on the ground that the recipient did not have any business connection or permanent establishment in India. In such a case, there would be no TDS liability u/s 195. However, Ld. AO referred to Explanation ... payment of Rs.99.55 Lacs but did not deduct TDS on the remaining amount on the ground that the recipient did not have any business connection or PE in India and therefore, not covered by Sec. 195. However, Ld. AO referred to Explanation to Sec. 9 as introduced by Finance

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Allsec Technologies Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1255/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Avtec Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7366/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashypa, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 234BSection 80I

included in the total income of the non- resident, whether or not. - (i) the non-resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India or (ii) the non-resident has rendered services in India [Emphasis Supplied) Article 12 India - USA DTAA Fees for included services