“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\nsource rule the said income would have been charged to tax in India. It was also\nsubmitted that the place of effective management is not situated in Singapore and\nrather it is situated outside Singapore, in Hong Kong and China as well as the\nDirectors ... Singapore. The assessee has incurred legal and\nprofessional expenses which are operating expenses which is more than\nsufficient to establish that the place of effective management is based in\nSingapore and it could not be said that the assessee is a shell company or conduit\ncompany. It was submitted

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

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

expanded the scope of his enquiry by asking the assessee to\nshow cause why in the case of the non-resident, the place of effective management as envisaged\nunder section 6(3) of the Act cannot be invoked in respect of M/s Otter Ltd. and M/s Credit Suisse\n(Singapore ... Credit Suisse\n(Singapore) Ltd has been influenced to make investment in the appellant company.\nIn view of this please explain why the place of effective management as envisaged\nu/s.6(3) cannot be invoked in your case in respect of M/s. Credit Suisse (Singapore)\nLtd.\n3. The third investor

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

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

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

income of BDML has been assessed to\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

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

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