← All Phrases

“fees for included services”

International TaxDTAA FTS ArticleDTAA FTS Article385 judgments

The decision most relied on for fees for included services is CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd. (346 ITR 467), cited in 371 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on fees for included services

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.
346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
371
citing judgments

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT
332 ITR 340 · 2011 · High Court
359
citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment, such as satellite transponders, do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under applicable tax treaties, especially when there is no transfer of the right to use a process or underlying technology.

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.
39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

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.

CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd.
383 ITR 1 · 2016 · Supreme Court
203
citing judgments

Fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii) can include payments for fully automated services even without direct human interface, as modern technological developments blur the specific human element in such processes.

Raymond Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
86 ITD 791 · 2003 · ITAT
154
citing judgments

For services to qualify as 'Fees for Technical Services' or 'Fees for Included Services' under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs), they must 'make available' technical knowledge, experience, skill, or processes to the recipient, enabling them to apply such expertise independently.

EPRSS Prepaid Recharge Services India Pvt.Ltd. v. ITO
100 Taxmann.com 52 · 2018 · Reported
101
citing judgments

Payments made for the use of cloud space do not constitute royalty payments for the purpose of Indian income tax, especially when they relate to accessing standard and automated services rather than acquiring rights to copyrighted material.

Steria (India) Ltd. v. CIT
386 ITR 390 · 2016 · High Court
83
citing judgments

Managerial services are not considered 'fees for included services' under Article 13(4) of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, thus payments for such services are not taxable as FTS under the treaty.

Judgments citing fees for included services

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore., Bengaluru vs. Algonomy Software Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2016-17 to 2018-

ITA 1196/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 14Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

hence it is eligible to claim benefits under India-USA DTAA. The payment received by the assessee will not qualify as "fees for Included services" under the India- USA DTAA. The definition "fees for Included services" under Article 12 to India-USA DTAA is as follows: “fee for included services ... hence it is eligible to claim benefits under India-USA DTAA. The payment received by the assessee will not qualify as "fees for Included services" under the India-USA DTAA. The definition "fees for Included services" under Article 12 to India-USA DTAA is as follows: “fee for included services

ACIT International Taxation 3 2 1 Mumbai, Income Tax Department vs. Mckinsey Company Lme Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for

ITA 1821/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 250

dated 20.09.2021, where the total income was determined at Rs.20,84,66,151/- after making an addition of Rs.20,76,36,061/- as ‘fee for included services’ and Rs.8,30,090/- as ‘reimbursement of expenses’. The ld. A.O. then passed the final assessment order dated 26.10.2021 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C ... make available any technical knowledge skill to M/s. Mckinsey India while providing the borrowed services and, therefore, the same would not qualify as ‘fees for included services’. It is observed that this issue has been decided by the co-ordinate bench in favour of the assessee in assessee’s case

ACIT International Taxation 3 2 1 Mumbai, Income Tax Department Mumbai vs. Mckinsey and Company Lme Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for

ITA 1818/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 250

dated 20.09.2021, where the total income was determined at Rs.20,84,66,151/- after making an addition of Rs.20,76,36,061/- as ‘fee for included services’ and Rs.8,30,090/- as ‘reimbursement of expenses’. The ld. A.O. then passed the final assessment order dated 26.10.2021 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C ... make available any technical knowledge skill to M/s. Mckinsey India while providing the borrowed services and, therefore, the same would not qualify as ‘fees for included services’. It is observed that this issue has been decided by the co-ordinate bench in favour of the assessee in assessee’s case

ACIT International Taxation 3 2 1 Mumbai, Income Tax Department Mumbai vs. Mckinsey and Company Singapore Pte Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for

ITA 1816/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 250

dated 20.09.2021, where the total income was determined at Rs.20,84,66,151/- after making an addition of Rs.20,76,36,061/- as ‘fee for included services’ and Rs.8,30,090/- as ‘reimbursement of expenses’. The ld. A.O. then passed the final assessment order dated 26.10.2021 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C ... make available any technical knowledge skill to M/s. Mckinsey India while providing the borrowed services and, therefore, the same would not qualify as ‘fees for included services’. It is observed that this issue has been decided by the co-ordinate bench in favour of the assessee in assessee’s case

ACIT International Taxation 3 2 1 Mumbai, Income Tax Department Mumbai vs. Mckinsey and Company Singapore Pte Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for

ITA 1815/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 250

dated 20.09.2021, where the total income was determined at Rs.20,84,66,151/- after making an addition of Rs.20,76,36,061/- as ‘fee for included services’ and Rs.8,30,090/- as ‘reimbursement of expenses’. The ld. A.O. then passed the final assessment order dated 26.10.2021 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C ... make available any technical knowledge skill to M/s. Mckinsey India while providing the borrowed services and, therefore, the same would not qualify as ‘fees for included services’. It is observed that this issue has been decided by the co-ordinate bench in favour of the assessee in assessee’s case

ACIT International Taxation 3 2 1 Mumbai, Income Tax Department Mumbai vs. Mckinsey and Company Singapore Pte Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for

ITA 1814/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 250

dated 20.09.2021, where the total income was determined at Rs.20,84,66,151/- after making an addition of Rs.20,76,36,061/- as ‘fee for included services’ and Rs.8,30,090/- as ‘reimbursement of expenses’. The ld. A.O. then passed the final assessment order dated 26.10.2021 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C ... make available any technical knowledge skill to M/s. Mckinsey India while providing the borrowed services and, therefore, the same would not qualify as ‘fees for included services’. It is observed that this issue has been decided by the co-ordinate bench in favour of the assessee in assessee’s case

Visteon Corporation, Michigan vs. DCIT, Intenl Taxn, Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 258/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Ajoy Vohra, Sr. Advocate (By Virtual), Ms. Jyotsma Sivakumar and Shri. AdiFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147

return of Income filed by the Appellant. 7. The learned AO and the DRP have erred in law by treating the amount as ‘fees for included services’ under Article 12(4) the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’). 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee Visteon Corporation ... year 2013-14 were not offered to tax in the return of income and why it should not fall under the category of ‘fee for included services [FIS]’ under the Act and the India-USA tax treaty. The company replied vide letter dated 28.02.2022 stating that the service provided

DCIT, Intl. Taxn., Circel1(2), Bangalore vs. Blue Yonder Inc., U.S.A

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1326/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedit(It)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Blue Yonder Inc., International Taxation, 15059 N, Suite 400 Scottsdale, Circle -1(2), Arizona, Foreign, Bengaluru. United States. Pan : Aaccj 3581 C Appellant Respondent C.O.No.34/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Blue Yonder Inc., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, United States. Circle -1(2), Pan : Aaccj 3581 C Bengaluru. Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate & Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. R. Ilavarasi, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Cit(A) Both Dated 09.05.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-13 & 2018-19. It(It)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 C.O. No.34/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Page 2 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate and Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Ilavarasi, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250

other reimbursements. The AO, in the assessment completed for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2018-19, held that these payments are for Fees for Included services (FIS) and brought the same to tax. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment completed for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2018-19, assessee preferred appeals ... reads as follows: “4. Ground Nos.2 to 5 in assessee’s appeal are with regard to erroneous treatment of reimbursements as ‘royalty’/’fees’ for included services. 4.1 In this regard, the ld. A.R. submitted that during the year, the Assessee had received

DCIT, Intl Taxn, Circle-1(2), Bng, Bengaluru vs. Blue Yonder Inc., U.S.A

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1302/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedit(It)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Blue Yonder Inc., International Taxation, 15059 N, Suite 400 Scottsdale, Circle -1(2), Arizona, Foreign, Bengaluru. United States. Pan : Aaccj 3581 C Appellant Respondent C.O.No.34/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Blue Yonder Inc., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, United States. Circle -1(2), Pan : Aaccj 3581 C Bengaluru. Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate & Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. R. Ilavarasi, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Cit(A) Both Dated 09.05.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-13 & 2018-19. It(It)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 C.O. No.34/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Page 2 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate and Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Ilavarasi, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250

other reimbursements. The AO, in the assessment completed for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2018-19, held that these payments are for Fees for Included services (FIS) and brought the same to tax. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment completed for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2018-19, assessee preferred appeals ... reads as follows: “4. Ground Nos.2 to 5 in assessee’s appeal are with regard to erroneous treatment of reimbursements as ‘royalty’/’fees’ for included services. 4.1 In this regard, the ld. A.R. submitted that during the year, the Assessee had received

DCIT, Intl. Taxn., Circle 1(2), Bangalore vs. Blue Yonder Inc., Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1414/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250

which an addition was sought to be made was the reimbursements received from BY India which the AO sought to treat as ‘Fees for Included Services’. While computing the total assessed income, the Assessing Officer erroneously proceeded on the basis that Rs. 44,23,96,360/- is the returned income ... read with the DTAA. 14.14 Without prejudice to the above, the ld. A.R. submitted that that the income towards AMC would not constitute Fees for Included services under India-USA DTAA given that: - the AMC services are inextricably and essentially linked to sale of underlying software, which is not chargeable

DCIT, Circle 1(2) (Intl. Taxn.), Blr, Bangalore vs. Blue Yonder Inc, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1413/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250

which an addition was sought to be made was the reimbursements received from BY India which the AO sought to treat as ‘Fees for Included Services’. While computing the total assessed income, the Assessing Officer erroneously proceeded on the basis that Rs. 44,23,96,360/- is the returned income ... read with the DTAA. 14.14 Without prejudice to the above, the ld. A.R. submitted that that the income towards AMC would not constitute Fees for Included services under India-USA DTAA given that: - the AMC services are inextricably and essentially linked to sale of underlying software, which is not chargeable

DCIT, Circle 1(2), (Intl. Taxn.), Bangalore vs. Blue Yonder Inc., Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1412/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250

which an addition was sought to be made was the reimbursements received from BY India which the AO sought to treat as ‘Fees for Included Services’. While computing the total assessed income, the Assessing Officer erroneously proceeded on the basis that Rs. 44,23,96,360/- is the returned income ... read with the DTAA. 14.14 Without prejudice to the above, the ld. A.R. submitted that that the income towards AMC would not constitute Fees for Included services under India-USA DTAA given that: - the AMC services are inextricably and essentially linked to sale of underlying software, which is not chargeable

Gemological Research (Thailand) Co. Ltd., Thailand vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) Circle-2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 790/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrigemological Research V/S. Acit(International (Thailand) Co. Ltd. बनाम Taxation) 2(3)(2), Mumbai 933, Mitrotown Ofce 17Th Floor, Air India Tower, 19Th Floor, Unit Building, Nariman Point, 1903-1910, Rama Iv Road, Mumbai-400021 Wang Mai Pathum, Bangkok, Thailand-10330 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg7850L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistryFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai
Section 147Section 148

related enterprise. Hence, a service PE is triggered if the services (other than included services as defined in Article 12 'Royalties and Fees for Included Services') are rendered by the assessee company through employees or other personnel and activities of that nature continue in India for a period or periods

Gemological Institute of America Inc., California vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) Circle-2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrigemological Institute Of V/S. Acit (International बनाम America Inc. Taxation)-2(3)(2), Mumbai 5345, The Robert Mouawad 17Th Floor, Air India Campus, Armada Drive, Building, Nariman Point, Carlsbad, California Mumbai-400021 Zip-092008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg7962K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistryFor Respondent: Smt. Shaileja Rai
Section 147Section 148

related enterprise. Hence, a service PE is triggered if the services (other than included services as defined in Article 12 'Royalties and Fees for Included Services') are rendered by the assessee company through employees or other personnel and activities of that nature continue in India for a period or periods

Sky Gem, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 790/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrigemological Research V/S. Acit(International (Thailand) Co. Ltd. बनाम Taxation) 2(3)(2), Mumbai 933, Mitrotown Ofce 17Th Floor, Air India Tower, 19Th Floor, Unit Building, Nariman Point, 1903-1910, Rama Iv Road, Mumbai-400021 Wang Mai Pathum, Bangkok, Thailand-10330 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg7850L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistryFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai
Section 147Section 148

related enterprise. Hence, a service PE is triggered if the services (other than included services as defined in Article 12 'Royalties and Fees for Included Services') are rendered by the assessee company through employees or other personnel and activities of that nature continue in India for a period or periods

Sky Gem, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrigemological Institute Of V/S. Acit (International बनाम America Inc. Taxation)-2(3)(2), Mumbai 5345, The Robert Mouawad 17Th Floor, Air India Campus, Armada Drive, Building, Nariman Point, Carlsbad, California Mumbai-400021 Zip-092008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg7962K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistryFor Respondent: Smt. Shaileja Rai
Section 147Section 148

related enterprise. Hence, a service PE is triggered if the services (other than included services as defined in Article 12 'Royalties and Fees for Included Services') are rendered by the assessee company through employees or other personnel and activities of that nature continue in India for a period or periods

Shell Information Technologies International Bv, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumba

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4711/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrishell Information V/S. Dcit (International Tax)- Technology International बनाम 4(2)(1), Bv 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, C/O. Bsr & Co. Llp, Air India Building, 2Nd Floor, Lodha Excelus, Nariman Point, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai-400021 N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai-400011 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics9091A Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Shaileja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

receipt as royalty do not require any direction from the penal as we have already upheld the taxability of the services as "fees for included service". 10. The learned Counsel for the assessee explained the facts that the SITI BV is a company registered in the Netherlands ... Indo Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Convention. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also raised the plea that the memorandum of understanding concerning fees for included services referred in Article 12(4) of the Indo USA DTAA concerning the expression? Available? was also not considered by the Authority for Advance

Gemological Institute of America, Inc., United States of America vs. ACIT (Int Tax Circle) - 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4433/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrigemological Institute Of V/S. Acit (International बनाम America, Inc. Taxation) Circle 5345, The Rober Mouawad 2(3)(2)Mumbai Camplus, Armada Drive, 17Th Floor, Air India Carlsbad, California Zip – Building, Nariman Point, 092008 Mumbai-400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg7962K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Smt. Shaileja Rai
Section 143(3)

related enterprise. Hence, a service PE is triggered if the services (other than included services as defined in Article 12 'Royalties and Fees for Included Services') are rendered by the assessee company through employees or other personnel and activities of that nature continue in India for a period or periods

General Motors Overses Disribution Coporation, Usa vs. ACIT Circle International Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2360/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 General Motors Company Usa, Vs Acit, Circle International 1209 Orange Street, Taxation 1(3)(1), Wilmington Delaware New Delhi – 110 002 United States, Zip Code - 19801 (Pan: Aaecg5571H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 General Motors Overseas Vs Acit, Circle International Distribution Corporation, Usa Taxation 1(3)(1), 2711, Centreville Roadnew Castle New Delhi – 110 002 County, Wilmington, Usa-19808 (Pan: Aaecg5571H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ss Tomar, Adv. & Shri Sumeet Hemkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri VishalFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 148Section 234BSection 234c

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV

General Motors Company, Usa vs. ACIT Circlr International Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2359/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 General Motors Company Usa, Vs Acit, Circle International 1209 Orange Street, Taxation 1(3)(1), Wilmington Delaware New Delhi – 110 002 United States, Zip Code - 19801 (Pan: Aaecg5571H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 General Motors Overseas Vs Acit, Circle International Distribution Corporation, Usa Taxation 1(3)(1), 2711, Centreville Roadnew Castle New Delhi – 110 002 County, Wilmington, Usa-19808 (Pan: Aaecg5571H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ss Tomar, Adv. & Shri Sumeet Hemkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri VishalFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 148Section 234BSection 234c

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV