“place of effective management”

HAREON SOLAR SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT INT. TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

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

then, based on the source rule the said income would have been charged to tax in India. It was also submitted that the place of effective management is not situated in Singapore and rather it is situated outside Singapore, in Hong Kong and China as well as the Directors ... Private Limited v. CIT, reported in (2023) 149 taxmann.com 178(SC). 8.3. In rebuttal, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the place of effective management is based in Singapore as Board of Directors meeting has taken place in Singapore and it was submitted that the Directors were physically

HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2542/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18 Hero Fincop Ltd., 34 Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1) C. R. Building, New Delhi-110002 अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Pan:Aaach0157J Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Shri Himanshu Aggarwal Adv. Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Pronouncement On 16.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am, The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of ‘Hire Purchase Leasing & Finance'. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/(First Appellate Authority Hereinafter Referred As “Faa”), Delhi Dated 27.03.2024 Arising Out Of Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.12.2019For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Disallowance Of Provision For Collection Charges -Rs. 9,75,00,000/-

expanded the scope of his enquiry by asking the assessee to show cause why in the case of the non-resident, the place of effective management as envisaged under section 6(3) of the Act cannot be invoked in respect of M/s Otter Ltd. and M/s Credit Suisse (Singapore ... based company has a direct influence on M/s. Otter Limited through which funds have been received into your company. Please explain why the place of effective management as envisaged u/s.6(3) cannot be invoked in your case in respect of M/s. Otter Limited. 2. Similarly, another investor by the name

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, WARD-1(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DEL;HI

In the result, ground of appeal no

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.4580/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2009-10) Bharti Airtel Ltd., Bharti Crescent, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase Ii, New Delhi 110070 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaacb-2894-G बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Ward 1(1), International Taxation, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Bhalla, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

admittedly not the assessee’s case that the assessee - companies are residents of Netherlands. Similarly, it is also not in dispute that ‘place of effective management’ is United Kingdom and the case of the assessee- companies cannot even be covered by this criterion. That leaves us only with ‘any other ... other criterion’ referred to in the treaty has to be restricted to the genus of three earlier expressions i.e. domicile, residence and place of effective management. The key question, therefore, is whether ‘earning of dividends earned from the Netherlands’ can be said to belong to the same genus to which

KISAN INTERNATIONAL TRADING FZE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX 2(1)(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Kisan International Trading Fze, Vs. Acit, Circle C/O Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Int. Tax 2(1)(2), C – 179, Mansarover Garden, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 015. (Pan :Aaeck0424D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Shri Sandeep Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 19.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 43 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 06.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On Facts & In Law The Order Dated 06Th December 2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)'} & Order Dated 23Rd December 2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao") Are Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio.

Income Tax Department and other Revenue Authorities, it establish that both Argos and its parent company are Singapore residents, and its place of effective management is also in Singapore. Section 90(2) of the Act mandates that a DTAA “shall prevail” over domestic law unless POEM or Section

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

have been any escapement of income under section 148 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. Assessing Officer misdirected himself by alleging 'Place of Effective Management' (POEM) in India, whereas the unamended section 6(3)(ii) applied for A.Y. 2015-16, thereby rendering the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer ... accepted by the Income Tax Department and other Revenue Authorities establish that both Argos and its Ephesus are Singapore residents, and its place of effective management is also Singapore. Section 90(2) of the Act mandates that a DTAA “shall prevail” over domestic law; POEM or Section

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

have been any escapement of income under section 148 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. Assessing Officer misdirected himself by alleging 'Place of Effective Management' (POEM) in India, whereas the unamended section 6(3)(ii) applied for A.Y. 2015-16, thereby rendering the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer ... accepted by the Income Tax Department and other Revenue Authorities establish that both Argos and its Ephesus are Singapore residents, and its place of effective management is also Singapore. Section 90(2) of the Act mandates that a DTAA “shall prevail” over domestic law; POEM or Section

SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, DELHI

income of BDML has been assessed t\ntax in the hands of SCIPL. If the Assessing officer believed that\nBDML had place of effective management and control in India, then\nthe income accruing in India of BDML’s case should have been\ntaxed in the hands of BDML only. Therefore

SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

taxed in the hands of SCIPL. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has discussed and vehemently argued that BDML has place of effective management and control in India. If that be so, then it is not understandable as to why the income of BDML has been assessed ... hands of SCIPL. If the Assessing officer believed that BDML had place of effective management and control in India, then the income accruing in India of BDML’s case should have been taxed in the hands of BDML only. Therefore, the addition made in the assessment order is not sustainable

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

taxed in the hands of SCIPL. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has discussed and vehemently argued that BDML has place of effective management and control in India. If that be so, then it is not understandable as to why the income of BDML has been assessed ... hands of SCIPL. If the Assessing officer believed that BDML had place of effective management and control in India, then the income accruing in India of BDML’s case should have been taxed in the hands of BDML only. Therefore, the addition made in the assessment order is not sustainable

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. BHUSHAN DUA, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

taxed in the hands of SCIPL. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has discussed and vehemently argued that BDML has place of effective management and control in India. If that be so, then it is not understandable as to why the income of BDML has been assessed ... hands of SCIPL. If the Assessing officer believed that BDML had place of effective management and control in India, then the income accruing in India of BDML’s case should have been taxed in the hands of BDML only. Therefore, the addition made in the assessment order is not sustainable

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. BHUSHAN DUA, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

taxed in the hands of SCIPL. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has discussed and vehemently argued that BDML has place of effective management and control in India. If that be so, then it is not understandable as to why the income of BDML has been assessed ... hands of SCIPL. If the Assessing officer believed that BDML had place of effective management and control in India, then the income accruing in India of BDML’s case should have been taxed in the hands of BDML only. Therefore, the addition made in the assessment order is not sustainable

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. BHUSHAN DUA, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

taxed in the hands of SCIPL. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has discussed and vehemently argued that BDML has place of effective management and control in India. If that be so, then it is not understandable as to why the income of BDML has been assessed ... hands of SCIPL. If the Assessing officer believed that BDML had place of effective management and control in India, then the income accruing in India of BDML’s case should have been taxed in the hands of BDML only. Therefore, the addition made in the assessment order is not sustainable

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

taxed in the hands of SCIPL. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has discussed and vehemently argued that BDML has place of effective management and control in India. If that be so, then it is not understandable as to why the income of BDML has been assessed ... hands of SCIPL. If the Assessing officer believed that BDML had place of effective management and control in India, then the income accruing in India of BDML’s case should have been taxed in the hands of BDML only. Therefore, the addition made in the assessment order is not sustainable

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, DELHI, DELHI vs. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

taxed in the hands of SCIPL. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has discussed and vehemently argued that BDML has place of effective management and control in India. If that be so, then it is not understandable as to why the income of BDML has been assessed ... hands of SCIPL. If the Assessing officer believed that BDML had place of effective management and control in India, then the income accruing in India of BDML’s case should have been taxed in the hands of BDML only. Therefore, the addition made in the assessment order is not sustainable

SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 03, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

taxed in the hands of SCIPL. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has discussed and vehemently argued that BDML has place of effective management and control in India. If that be so, then it is not understandable as to why the income of BDML has been assessed ... hands of SCIPL. If the Assessing officer believed that BDML had place of effective management and control in India, then the income accruing in India of BDML’s case should have been taxed in the hands of BDML only. Therefore, the addition made in the assessment order is not sustainable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-03, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. LUV RANJAN, GHAZIABAD

income of BDML has been assessed t\ntax in the hands of SCIPL. If the Assessing officer believed that\nBDML had place of effective management and control in India, then\nthe income accruing in India of BDML’s case should have been\ntaxed in the hands of BDML only. Therefore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. BHUSHAN DUA, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

taxed in the hands of SCIPL. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has discussed and vehemently argued that BDML has place of effective management and control in India. If that be so, then it is not understandable as to why the income of BDML has been assessed ... hands of SCIPL. If the Assessing officer believed that BDML had place of effective management and control in India, then the income accruing in India of BDML’s case should have been taxed in the hands of BDML only. Therefore, the addition made in the assessment order is not sustainable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. BHUSHAN DUA, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

taxed in the hands of SCIPL. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has discussed and vehemently argued that BDML has place of effective management and control in India. If that be so, then it is not understandable as to why the income of BDML has been assessed ... hands of SCIPL. If the Assessing officer believed that BDML had place of effective management and control in India, then the income accruing in India of BDML’s case should have been taxed in the hands of BDML only. Therefore, the addition made in the assessment order is not sustainable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

taxed in the hands of SCIPL. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has discussed and vehemently argued that BDML has place of effective management and control in India. If that be so, then it is not understandable as to why the income of BDML has been assessed ... hands of SCIPL. If the Assessing officer believed that BDML had place of effective management and control in India, then the income accruing in India of BDML’s case should have been taxed in the hands of BDML only. Therefore, the addition made in the assessment order is not sustainable