← All Phrases

“place of effective management”

International TaxSection 6(3)Section 6(3)84 judgments

The decision most relied on for place of effective management is M/s Abbey Business Service (India) Private Limited v. DCIT (23 Taxmann.com 346), cited in 33 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on place of effective management

M/s Abbey Business Service (India) Private Limited v. DCIT
23 Taxmann.com 346 · 2012 · ITAT
33
citing judgments

A jurisdictional ITAT ruling in favour of the taxpayer, later upheld by the Karnataka High Court, is considered persuasive in similar cases, including those referred to a Special Bench of the ITAT.

Judgments citing place of effective management

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. 9X Media P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7477/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 35D

movable property pertaining to the operation of such ships and aircraft, shall be taxable only in the Contracting State in which the place of effective management of the enterprise is situated. 41 [ 3A. Gains from the alienation of shares acquired on or after 1st April 2017 in a company which

9X Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

ITA 7052/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 35D

movable property pertaining to the operation of such ships and aircraft, shall be taxable only in the Contracting State in which the place of effective management of the enterprise is situated. 41 [ 3A. Gains from the alienation of shares acquired on or after 1st April 2017 in a company which

Mosdorfer Gmbh, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle Int. Tax. 2(2)(1), New Delhi

ITA 286/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmamosdorfer Gmbh Vs. Acit, 408, Maker Bhavan No. International Tax 3, 21, New Marine Circle 2(2)(1) Lines, Mumbai Pan : Aagcm6984N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148

business in the first mentioned State through a ‘PE situated therein. PE is generally classified into six categories: i. Place of Management or Place of Effective Management (POEM); ii. Fixed Place PE (branch, office, factory, workshop, warehouse, sales outlet, website, etc.); iii. Construction PE (building site or construction); iv. Installation

Legrand Nederland B.V., Mumbai vs. Asstt. Comm. of Income Tax 3(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2487/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelegrand Nederland B.V. V. Acit (Intl. Taxation) – 3(1)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building 61/62, 6Th Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai Kalpatru Square, Kondivita Road Off. Andheri Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aaccl1156B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Prayas Jain Department Represented By : Shri Amit Kumar Soni

Section 10(34)Section 112(1)(c)Section 115Section 144C(5)Section 2(22)(d)Section 244ASection 270A

traffic or movable property pertaining to the operation of such ships or aircraft, shall be taxable only in the State in which the place of effective management of the enterprise is situated. For Page No. 35 Legrand Nederland B.V. the purposes of this paragraph, the provisions of paragraph

Indium IV (Mauritius) Holdings Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax (International Taxation) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2423/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleindium Iv (Mauritius) Holdings Limited V. Dcit (International Transaction)-2(2)(1) Office 201, 2Nd Floor, Sterling Tower Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point 14 Poudriere Street, Port Louis Mumbai – 400 021 Mauritius Pan: Aacci4907P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 45Section 92C

movable property pertaining to the operation of such ships and aircraft, shall be taxable only in the Contracting State in which the place of effective management of the enterprise is situated. 4. Gains derived by a resident of a Contracting State from the alienation of any property other than those

Tata Nyk Shipping Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT, Int.Tax. Circle-3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1766/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anshuman Pattnaik, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 263Section 44B

could not be regarded as tax resident of Singapore entitled to benefit of DTAA. 4. Both the parties made extensive arguments referring to Place of Effective Management (PoEM). 5. We find that the similar allegations have been made by the revenue and also during the proceedings concluded

Thr Infrastructure Pte Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1)(1), Intl Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/DEL/2022[201-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

company during the relevant year were non- residents, stationed outside India and the board meetings were also held outside India and thus place of effective management of the Appellant during the year under consideration was not in India, hence Appellant cannot be said to be resident in India during ... been completed taxing the said interest @ 10%, thereby accepting that the Assessee was entitled to the Treaty benefits. 21. With regard to the Place of effective management ("POEM") of the assessee is in Singapore, the ld. AR argued that Prior to the amendment of section

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

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

ITA 6096/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2023AY 2007-08
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

from India, because the said entity has neither been incorporated nor has any connection in India nor has any business connection or any place of effective management is situated in India. Further, Ms. Amrita Jhaveri nothing has been brought on record in „reasons recorded‟ or there is any material

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

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

ITA 6095/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2023AY 2006-07
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

from India, because the said entity has neither been incorporated nor has any connection in India nor has any business connection or any place of effective management is situated in India. Further, Ms. Amrita Jhaveri nothing has been brought on record in „reasons recorded‟ or there is any material

Sage International Inc., Usa vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2214/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sage International Inc., Vs Acit, 105, Townline Road, 2 Pmb 332, Circle 3(1)(2), Vernon Hills, Foreign United International States, Usa. Taxation, Delhi. Pan-Aaycs9212R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca Respondent By Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 15.07.2022 For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19 .

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 4Section 90

contradictory findings in so far as they have held the assessee to be a non-resident company which does not fall within the Place of Effective Management (POEM) Rules, there by denying the credit of Foreign Tax, while at the same time taxing the income of the assessee company which ... accordingly the income should be taxable in USA based on sourced income. It was stated that SII on the basis of place of effective management rules introduced by Finance Act, 3 | P a g e 2016. It was deemed to be resident in India and the income was liable

Narinder Pal Singh, Yamuna Nagar vs. ACIT Circle-2(1), Faridabad

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3786/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmanarinder Pal Singh, Vs. Acit, H. No. 25, Laxmi Garden, Opp Circle-2(1), Iti, Yamunanagar, Faridabad Haryana-135001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajeps1966L Assessee By : Ms. Priti Goel, Ar Revenue By: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/03/2023

For Appellant: Ms. Priti Goel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 192

Contracting States, the competent authorities of the Contracting States shall settle the question by mutual agreement keeping in view its place of incorporation, place of effective management and other relevant factors.” 8. As for convenience the relevant findings of ld AO in para 2.2 are reproduced below:- “2.2 Since

Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. The DCIT 2(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above directions

ITA 659/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blehapag-Llyod Aktiengesellschaft V. Dcit – 2(2)(2) C/O Hapag-Lloyd India Pvt. Ltd., Air India Building 501, Satellite Gazebo, B-Wing Nariman Point 5Th Floor, Curu Hargovindji Marg Mumbai – 400 021 Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Pan: Aaach0979G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh
Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

taxable in India in view of Article 8 of the India Germany DTAA but is taxable only in Germany, being the place of effective management of Hapag-Lloyd. 4. The Assessing Officer observed that assessee has claimed the benefit or Article 8 of India Germany DTAA with respect to income ... Profits from the operation of ships or aircraft in international traffic shall be taxable only in the Contracting State in which the place of effective management of the enterprise is situated. 12 Hapag-Llyod Aktiengesellschaft 2. If the place of effective management of a shipping enterprise is aboard a ship

Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Private Limited, Ramanagaram vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 92D

engaged in inland waterways transport, may be IT(TP)A No.362/Bang/2021 Page 25 of 40 taxed in the Contracting State in which the place of effective management of the enterprise is situated.” 14.3. Article 15(1) of OECD Model Convention lays down the rule of taxation of income earned

M/S Kennametal Inc, United States of America vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the appeal for AY 2012-13

ITA 1658/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan &For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 143(3)

operated in international traffic, or aboard a boat engaged in inland waterways transport, may be taxed in the Contracting State in which the place of effective management of the enterprise is situated.” 14.3. Article 15(1) of OECD Model Convention lays down the rule of taxation of income earned

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 369/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

operated in international traffic, or aboard a boat engaged in inland waterways transport, may be taxed in the Contracting State in which the place of effective management of the enterprise is situated.” Article 15(1) of OECD Model Convention lays down the rule of taxation of income earned

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 368/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

operated in international traffic, or aboard a boat engaged in inland waterways transport, may be taxed in the Contracting State in which the place of effective management of the enterprise is situated.” Article 15(1) of OECD Model Convention lays down the rule of taxation of income earned

M/S Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 367/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

operated in international traffic, or aboard a boat engaged in inland waterways transport, may be taxed in the Contracting State in which the place of effective management of the enterprise is situated.” Article 15(1) of OECD Model Convention lays down the rule of taxation of income earned

Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 366/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

operated in international traffic, or aboard a boat engaged in inland waterways transport, may be taxed in the Contracting State in which the place of effective management of the enterprise is situated.” Article 15(1) of OECD Model Convention lays down the rule of taxation of income earned

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 365/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

operated in international traffic, or aboard a boat engaged in inland waterways transport, may be taxed in the Contracting State in which the place of effective management of the enterprise is situated.” Article 15(1) of OECD Model Convention lays down the rule of taxation of income earned

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

operated in international traffic, or aboard a boat engaged in inland waterways transport, may be taxed in the Contracting State in which the place of effective management of the enterprise is situated.” Article 15(1) of OECD Model Convention lays down the rule of taxation of income earned