“business connection”

DCIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. Keystone Realtors P Ltd As Representative Assessee of M/S. Mausmi Ventures Ltd.), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.88/मुं/ 2023 से 90/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2011-12 से 2013-14)

resident, includes any person in India— (a) who is employed by or on behalf of the non-resident; or (b) who has any business connection with the non-resident; or (c) from or through whom the non-resident is in receipt of any income, whether directly or indirectly ... such transactions in the ordinary course of his business and not as a principal. [Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "business connection" shall have the meaning assigned to it in Explanation 2 to clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 9 of this

Owens Corning (Singapore) Pvt Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Comm of Income Tax (International Tax), Circle -3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleowens Corning Inc., Dy.Cit C/O-Owens Corning (International Tax), बनाम/ (India) Pvt. Ltd., 7Th Circle-3(2)(2), Vs. Floor, Alpha Building Air India Building, Hiranandani Gardens Nariman Point, Powai, Mumbai-400076. Mumbai-400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco3242R (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bhalla.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 10/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Passed Under Section 143(3)R.W.S144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) In Pursuance To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“Drp”) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 28.11.2022. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1.0 “Re: Treating Fabrication Charges Received As 'Fees For Technical Services': 1

Owens-Corning(Singapore)Pte Ltd. assessee has neither any Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India as per Article 5 of India-Singapore Treaty nor any business connection in India. The Assessing Officer (AO) found in the earlier years, the income was treated as FTS and was taxed. The assessee has filed ... same for taxation stating that these fabrication charges received are not taxable in India since the company does not have any Permanent Establishment or Business Connection in India. Also these charges are not for any equipment and hence cannot be said to be Royalty in terms of Article

Sulzer Pumps India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addl./Jt/Dy/ Asstt/ ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd V. Addl./Joint/Dy./Acit/Ito Plot No. 9, Midc, Digha National E-Assessment Centre Delhi Thane-Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai- 400708 Pan: Aaack2238F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd V. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Plot No. 9, Midc, Digha Thane-Belapur Road Navi Mumbai- 400708 Pan: Aaack2238F (Appellant) (Respondent)

have always applied to all persons, resident or nonresident, whether or not the non-resident person has a residence or place of business or business connection in India ; or any other presence in any manner whatsoever in India. Mere requirement of permanent establishment in India was thus done away with ... persons, resident or non- resident, whether or not the non-resident person has— 33- (i) a residence or place of business or business connection in India ; or (ii) any other presence in any manner whatsoever in India.' It is indisputably true that such Explanation inserted with retrospective effect provides that

Board of Control for Cricket in India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

India”. As per section 9(1)(i) of the Act, all the 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 in India, or through the transfer

Board of Control for Cricket in India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

India”. As per section 9(1)(i) of the Act, all the 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 in India, or through the transfer

Owens Corning Inc., Mumbai vs. The Dy Comm of Income Tax (International Tax), Circle -3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

have any permanent establishment in India as per Article 5 of India-USA DTAA. It also submitted that it does not have any business connection in India. The Assessing Officer however took the view that the above said amount of Rs.14.88 crores is in the nature of “royalty” company

Amrita Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Intl. Tax) Range 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

commissions for facilitating sale of paintings/art work. These receipts or deposits did not originate or arise 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.F.Hussain for more than Rs.65 lakhs during the year and assessee's role as consultant in the field of paintings clearly establishes a business connection of the assessee with India through her sister Priya Jhaveri, Jhaveri Contemporary set up by her along with her sister Priya Jhaveri

Amrita Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Intl. Tax) Range 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

commissions for facilitating sale of paintings/art work. These receipts or deposits did not originate or arise 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.F.Hussain for more than Rs.65 lakhs during the year and assessee's role as consultant in the field of paintings clearly establishes a business connection of the assessee with India through her sister Priya Jhaveri, Jhaveri Contemporary set up by her along with her sister Priya Jhaveri

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Marriott International Design & Construction Services Inc., Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit (It) – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Marriott International Design Room No. 1632, 16Th Floor & Construction Services Inc., Air India Building, Nariman Point C/O. Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 021 303A, 304, Fulcrum B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai, Sahar Road Andheri (E) - 400099 Pan: Aagcm5401Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Mum/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2977/Mum/2022 (A.Y: 2018-19)] M/S. Marriott International Design V. Dcit (It) – 3(2)(1) & Construction Services Inc., Room No. 1632, 16Th Floor C/O. Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., Air India Building 303A, 304, Fulcrum Nariman Point B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai, Sahar Road Andheri (E) - 400099 Pan: Aagcm5401Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Paras Savla Department Represented By : Shri Kunal Haver

held that even if the assessee company was to be treated as an agent within the meaning of section 163(1), there was no business connection within the meaning of section 9(1) of the Act so the income accruing to the non resident foreign company could not be assessed ... between the business of the non resident and the activity in the taxable territories in respect of the income and, therefore, there was no business connection between the foreign company and the assessee company and the Page No. | 13 C.O. No. 01/MUM/2023 M/s. Marriott International Design & Construction Services Inc., income

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Co, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blerga International Reinsurance V. Dcit (International Taxation) -4(1)(1) Room No. 172, 17Th Floor Company Designated Activity Air India Building, Nariman Point Company Mumbai – 400 021 C/O. S.R.B.C & Associates Llp 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aadcr1226K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.S. Paridiwala & Ms. Jasmin Amalasadvala Department Represented By : Ms. Surabhi Sharma

circumstances of the case in law, and based on the directions of the Hon'ble DRP. erred in concluding that the Appellant has a business connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(i) of the Act on the basis that the Appellant is earning income from ... entered into contracts with the Indian cedents that are likely to continue for several years. In view of this, there is a clear cut business connection and the income of the Assessee is taxable in India in terms of section 9(1)(i) of the Act.  Further, the assessee

DCIT (It)-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2866/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit(It)-4(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Reliance Jio Room No. 1712, 17Th Floor, Infocomm Ltd Vs. Air India Building, Nariman 3Rd Floor, Maker Point, Mumbai-400021. Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci6363G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nimesh Vora/Ms. Moksha Moksha Mehta Revenue By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/02/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Mumbai Dated 08.09.2022 For The Ay 2019-20. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Are As Under: - A. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That Tax Was Not Required To Be Deducted At Source On The Payment Made By The Assessee To Reliance Jio Infocomm Uk (Rjiuk) For Availing Bandwidth Services As It Did Not Amount To Income Of The Payee By Way Of Royalty U/S 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act, 1961 Read With Article 13 Of The India-Uk Dtaa. B. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld, Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That Tax Was Not Required To Be Deducted At Source On The Payment Made By The Assessee To Reliance Jio Infocomm Uk (Rjiuk) For Availing Bandwidth Services As It Did Not Amount To Income Of The Payee

business profits" of RJIPL. Insofar the taxability of the aforesaid "business profits" is concerned, we find that as RJIPL did not have any business connection or a PE in India, therefore, the same as per Article 7 of the India-Singapore DTAA could not have been brought ... business profits" of RJIPL. Insofar the taxability of the aforesaid "business profits" is concerned, we find that as RJIPL did not have any business connection or a PE in India, therefore, 24 A.Y. 2019-20 Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. the same as per Article 7 of the India-Singapore DTAA

Gebr.Pfeiffer Se, Germany vs. CIT(Drp-1), Mumbai 3, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhgebr Pfeiffer Se Vs. Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Barbarossastr 50-54, 1711, 17Th Floor, Air Kaiserlautern, Germany India Building, 676550 Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecg9980A Appellant .. Respondent Gebr Pfeiffer Se Vs. Cit(Drp-1) Barbarossastr 50-54, Income Tax Department Kaiserlautern, Germany Mumbai -3 676550 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecg9980A Appellant .. Respondent

basis and purely based upon the assumption and surmises; 6. That the Assessing Officer/DRI has growly erred in considering that the Appellant has business connection in India through its AE namely "GPI" which helps in business development to the Appellant Company without any contrary evidence or issuance of any show ... held that M/s Gebr Pfeiffer India Pvt. Ltd. was a permanent establishment of the assessee i.e Gebr Pfeiffer Se through which the assessee has business connection in India. The A.O further stated that Gebr Pfeiffer Se Germany was the holding company of the Indian entity Gebr Pfeiffer India

Gebr.Pfeiffer Se, Germany vs. ACIT Circle 2(3)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhgebr Pfeiffer Se Vs. Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Barbarossastr 50-54, 1711, 17Th Floor, Air Kaiserlautern, Germany India Building, 676550 Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecg9980A Appellant .. Respondent Gebr Pfeiffer Se Vs. Cit(Drp-1) Barbarossastr 50-54, Income Tax Department Kaiserlautern, Germany Mumbai -3 676550 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecg9980A Appellant .. Respondent

basis and purely based upon the assumption and surmises; 6. That the Assessing Officer/DRI has growly erred in considering that the Appellant has business connection in India through its AE namely "GPI" which helps in business development to the Appellant Company without any contrary evidence or issuance of any show ... held that M/s Gebr Pfeiffer India Pvt. Ltd. was a permanent establishment of the assessee i.e Gebr Pfeiffer Se through which the assessee has business connection in India. The A.O further stated that Gebr Pfeiffer Se Germany was the holding company of the Indian entity Gebr Pfeiffer India