“ business connection ”

125 ITR 525 · 1980 · Supreme Court

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.

270

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT

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.

239 ITR 587 · 1999 · Supreme Court

243

95 ITD 269 · 2005 · High Court

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

213

CIT v. R.D. Aggarwal and Co.

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.

56 ITR 20 · 1965 · Supreme Court

156

CIT v. Faizan Shoes (P.) Ltd.

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.

367 ITR 155 · 2014 · High Court

139

Set Satellite Pte Ltd. v. CIT

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.

307 ITR 205 · 2008 · High Court

86 Taxmann.com 240 · 2017 · Supreme Court

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

ITA 165/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

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

M/S. Dmg Mori India Private Limited (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines and Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 165/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Dmg Mori India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines & The Deputy Services Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 3/1, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Kiadb, Peenya, 1St Stage, Circle – 11(1), Ward No. 1, Hmt, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aabcd0003E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vikram, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Cit(Appeals) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act (Rs.2,76,24,000/-) 2.1. Disallowance U/S.40(A)(I) Unwarranted: The Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Payments Made To M/S R.S Mail Limited , United Kingdom

For Appellant: Shri Vikram, Advocate

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

make TDS u/s 195(1) shall be applicable whether or not the non-resident person has- (i) a residence or place of business or business connection in India, or (ii) any other presence in any manner whatsoever in India. In view of the above, I uphold the disallowance made

Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1718/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Section 101ASection 143(3)Section 2(9)Section 3Section 30Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

cases where the foreign company earns business income, the same can be taxed in India only if it has a PE in India or 'business connection' so as to fall within the scope of Indian tax laws. At the outset, it has been asserted by the appellant before us that ... such situations, the onus is on the Revenue to establish that the foreign company has a 'business connection' or a PE in India so as to invite any tax liability under the Indian tax laws. Ostensibly, the aforesaid is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

M/S Parthiv Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4505/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amar Jit Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Parthiv Enterprises, Ito-17(2)(5), 83 Ramesh Bhuvan Nakhoda Room No.123-A, 1St Floor, Street, Vs. Pydhonie, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 003 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaefp8201A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Sr. A.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2022 O R D E R Per Amar Jit Singh: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)] For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing The Interest Free Loans Of Rs.3,35,23,178/- Out Of Rs.12,19,54,637/- & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same As Loans Taken For Non-Business Purposes. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing & Adding The Proportionate Interest Paid Of Rs.22,24,357/- Out Of The Total Interest Paid Of Rs.80,92,036/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Added The Same To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same For Non Business Purpose. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of The Genuine Loan Received From The Mis K.C. Kapadia & Sons(P) Ltd Of Rs.39,34,639/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same For Non-Business Purpose.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, Sr. A.R

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

furtherance of the exclusive use for business purpose. Therefore, it is seen that about 27% of the total loan funds have no plausible business connection. Therefore, on similar pro-rata basis, the AO -has disallowed out of the total interest outgo of Rs.80.92 lacs (approx.), the interest to the tune

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Mumbai

797/Mum/2018

ITA 1769/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

assessee. No material has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer to demonstrate that the non-resident agents either have any business connection in India or have PE in India so as to bring the commission payment within the tax net. The factual finding recorded by learned Commissioner (Appeals ... that the non- resident agents have rendered the services in their respective countries and do not have either any business connection in India or any PE in India has not been controverted by the Revenue. Further, the nature of payment viz. commission has also not been disputed by the Revenue

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1650/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT–DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90Section 91

assessee. No material has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer to demonstrate that the non–resident agents either have any business connection in India or have PE in India so as to bring the commission payment within the tax net. The factual finding recorded by learned Commissioner (Appeals ... that the non–resident agents have rendered the services in their respective countries and do not have either any business connection in India or any PE in India has not been controverted by the Revenue. Further, the nature of payment viz. commission has also not been disputed by the Revenue

Taj Tv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 6588/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, Sr. AR

Section 250Section 90(2)Section 92E

providing transponders facilities to various entities in the world. Intelsat was not carrying any business activities in India and also did not have any business connection in India as per section 9(1)(i) of the Act. Further, the transponder was also placed outside India. The payments were made

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 382/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

ITA 381/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

assessee could not satisfactorily explain, as to how, she was informed regarding shares of these companies available for purchase. She failed to establish business connection with such company personnel. It has been alleged by Ld.AO that these companies were hardly having any profit or business activity so as to attract

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

ITA 380/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

ITA 3153/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Snehalatha Singhi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Snehalatha Singhi, The Deputy Flat No. 101, Commissioner Of Pride Elite, Income Tax, No. 10, Museum Road, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Ajmps0427Q Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija, Assessee By Advocates : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 10.08.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 31/03/2015 For Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,31,57,680/-. Ld.Ao Observed That Assessee Has Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38) Amounting To Rs.3,10,94,952/- Towards Sale Of Equity Shares. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny