“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 Thanjavur District Co Op Milk Producers Union Limited, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, Circle2(1), Trichy

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

ITA 404/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.404/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Thanjavur District Co Op The Principal Milk Producers Union Limited, Vs Commissioner Of Income No.1, Nanjikottai Road, Tax-1, Madurai. Thanjavur – 613006. Pan: Aaaat 0224 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By K.Meenakshisundaram - Itp Revenue By Shri M.Rajan – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Against The Order U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Act) Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Madurai-1, Dated 26/03/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26/3/2022 Received By The Appellant On 1/4/2022 Is Objected To On The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Madurai Erred In Setting Aside The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-2(1) Trichy Dated 5/11/2019 For The Assessment Year 2017- 2018 Under Section 263 On Mere Assumptions & Presumptions That The Order Had Been Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Misdirected Himself That The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue Simply For The Reason That The

Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

Officer has recorded that from the details submitted by the assessee and the explanation given by him, it was observed that assessee had regular business connection with the company in which investment had been made and also there was business income to the assessee from the same. Therefore, interest expense ... agrees that the Assessing Officer has recorded from the details submitted by respondent and the explanation given by respondent that the assessee had regular business connection with the company in which investment has been made and also there was a business income to the assessee from the same. He notes

Sunsmart Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle - 6 (2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2791/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2791/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S.Sunsmart Technologies Pvt. Ltd., V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.672, Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Corporate Circle-6(2), Temple Tower, Chennai. Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai.

For Respondent: Mr.Varuvooru Sreedhar

Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

total income of the non-resident whether or not – (i) the non-resident has a residence or a place of business or business connection in India; or (ii) the non-resident has rendered services in India. M/s.Sunsmart Technologies Pvt. Ltd. :: 6 :: If we examine the nature of services rendered

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 494/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR

Section 148

which means for a continuous period of last 20 years; b) He has been working as an employee in Belgium; c) He has no business connections in India or outside India; and d) Sources of his income in India are only interest income on FD being duly declared ... Trib), [ pg 1- 25]: wherein it was held that since the assessee is a non-resident in India since 1990 and has no business connection in India during that period, mere holding of an account outside India does not lead to the conclusion that the amount is tax evaded

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 493/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR

Section 148

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehra, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 492/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR

Section 148

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 491/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR

Section 148

ITO 26(3)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Vivaan Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, we set aside whole issue back to the file of the ld

ITA 1063/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Vivaan Corporation The Income Tax Officer 505, 5Th Floor, Ward 26(3)(4) Ackruti Star, Room No.336, Income Tax Opp Ackruti Centre Point, Office, 34D Floor, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Midc, Bandra East, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 051 Andheri-400 093 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalfv4392H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sunil A Umap, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A Umap, DR

Section 143

fact by adding ₹ 58,30,48,458/- which is not the income of the appellant. The appellant submitted that it had business connections with two parties, viz., M/s. Friends Trading and M/s. Medichem Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of whom it has received

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) - RG. 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 6935/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Us Are As Follows:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 9(1)(i)

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 ... having a regular flow of income from India which further strength the argument that the Assessee has a clear-cut business connection in India. Accordingly, the arguments of the Assessee on this account are flawed. In such a scenario, the contention that the assessee does not have any operations

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2891/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Jr. Standing Counsel for Dept. (DR)

Section 192Section 195Section 40Section 80JSection 9(1)(vii)

included in the total income of the nonresident, 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.” The Ld CIT(A) has expressed the following view:- “10.5 A perusal ... deemed to accrue or arise in India, irrespective of the fact, whether the non- resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India or it has rendered services in India. 19. Factually, the payments made to non-resident attorneys are neither in the nature of interest

Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2091/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40

appreciate that in the absence of a running commission agreement with the Appellant, it cannot be presumed that the non-resident agents have a business connection in India so as to attract the provisions of 195 of the Act. 3. Disallowance of Marked to Market losses ... services rendered by foreign agent. The assessee failed to establish that the foreign agent had rendered the service abroad and there was no business connection in India. Accordingly, the disallowance was upheld. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3.4 After careful consideration of factual matrix, we find

Dy CIT (Int.Tax)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 762/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.762 & 761/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Dy Cit(Int.Tax)-2(1)(1) M/S. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd, Room No. 1713, 17Th बिधम/ 1. Raffles Link, 03/04-01, Floor, Air India Building, Vs. South Lobby, Singapore, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Foreign, Singapore 400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccc7328N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Bharti Singh-Sr, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Paras Savla/Pratik Poddar/Harsh Shah, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 28.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 25.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C For Ay 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Singh-Sr, DRFor Respondent: Shri. Paras Savla/Pratik

Section 143(3)

controlled and regulated by SEBI and RBI in India, therefore, location control and management of the fund is situated in India, which constitutes a business connection in India and creates a sufficient nexus of the offshore distribution income with India. Accordingly the Assessing Officer taxed the commission 6 I.T.A ... 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

Dy CIT-(Int-Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 761/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Singh-Sr, DRFor Respondent: Shri. Paras Savla/Pratik

Section 143(3)

Shri. M. Subramani, Chennai vs. ITO Bus Ward Xv(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 407/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:407/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2009 - 2010

For Appellant: Mr. V. RavichandranFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that the cash deposits made in the ICICI Bank has no business connection with his contractual business with RCC International Freight Services Limited and Vijay Transport. He noted that the transactions entered with these two entities

Asst. Comm. of Income Tax-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Exxon Mobile Company Pvt Ltd., Mumbai-400022

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross-

ITA 1283/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Exxon Mobile Company Tax, Office Of The Asstt. Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Kalpataru Point, Plot No. 107, 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, Aayakar Road No. 8, Sion (East), Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 3157 H Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 113/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 1283/Mum/2022) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Exxon Mobile Company Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Office Of The Asstt. Kalpataru Point, Plot No. 107, Road Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax No. 8, Sion (East), 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, Mumbai-400020. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 3157 H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Paras Savla, Adv. A/W Mr. Dhiraj Jain Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Paras Savla, Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, DR

Section 195Section 40

virtue of its business EMCAP as EMCAP earned fees by virtue of its business EMCAP as EMCAP earned fees by virtue of its business connection in India and is liable to be taxed in India" connection in India and is liable to be taxed in India" connection in India

Barclays Capital Mauritius Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, It 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7209/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.7209/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2016-17) Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited. 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. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-1(2)(1) 4Th Floor, Room No.427, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate With Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala & Shri Harshit Sangoi. ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Milind S. Chavan & Nihar Samal सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate with Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala &For Respondent: S/Shri Milind S. Chavan & Nihar Samal

Section 143(3)

ownership of these shares belongs to the SCB-India, and NYB-Mellon has received it as a custodian for the assessee. The business connection between this income and India is thus clearly evident and beyond any doubt or controversy. SCB-India is Indian depository of the underlying shares in questions ... 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 any property in India, or through or from any assets or source of income in India” will

Asit C. Mehta Investment Intermediates Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Appellant for the Assessment Year 2012-13 (ITA No

ITA 3550/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 37

disallowance. 10. Per Contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the Appellant had failed to show that there was a business connection between commission expenses paid by the Appellant to the sub-brokers/business associates with the brokerage business of the Appellant. Further ... relevant documents/details were placed before the authorities below. Taking us through pages 99 to 117 of the paper-book, he submitted that the business connection and rendition of services was established during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings. The Ledger Account giving details of business associate expense as well

Asian Business Connections Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax-Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 917/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleasian Business Connections Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 5(3), Fm-18 Mansarovar Complex No. 7 Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal Mumbai-400020 Madhya Pradesh - 462016

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 294BSection 69Section 69C

Asian Business Connections Pvt Ltd. ITA.No.917/M/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A ‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN B.R, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asian Business Connections Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 5(3), Fm-18 Mansarovar Complex No. 7 Shivaji nagar ... GADALE, JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal -53 Mumbai (hereinafter in 2 M/s Asian Business Connections Pvt Ltd. ITA.No.917/M/2022 short “CIT(A)”) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter in short

Spe India Films Holding Llc, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Intl Tax) -4(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result ground no-2 raised by the assessee- is fully allowed

ITA 457/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalspe India Films Holding Llc C/O, Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp One International Centre, Tower No.3, 27Th Floor-32Nd Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aaocs1827L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit (International Taxation)-4(2)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Narimaon Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. P.J. Pardiwala/Paras Savla Respondent By : Sh. A.K. Keshari Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Drp’] Dated 06.01.2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant, Objects To The Order Dated 19 January 2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Sh. P.j. Pardiwala/Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Keshari

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

section (1) of section 9 specifically states that 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 Indian or through the transfer ... that assuming that there was receipt of income, profit and gains within India, such income, profits and gains clearly arose through or from a business connection in India and, therefore, the provisions of Section 42 (I) would apply and such income, profits and gains should be dealt with as income

Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle-15 (3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7318/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Plot No.9, Midc, Digha, Room No. 451, Aayakar Thane- Belapur Road, Navi Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai-400 708 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack2238F Assessee By : Shri V. Shridharan & Ms. Manasi C, Ar Revenue By : Shri C T Mathew, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri V. Shridharan &For Respondent: Shri C T Mathew, DR

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

always applied to all persons, resident or non- resident, 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

ADIT (It)-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Nagase & Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2312/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharashi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

document has been referred by the lower authorities to prove that transaction entered into by the liaison office establish the fact of existence of business connection of the assessee in India. The Co-ordinate Bench also held that there was no business connection of the assessee in India and there