← All Phrases

“use of equipment”

International TaxSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vi)119 judgments

The decision most relied on for use of equipment is Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT (332 ITR 340), cited in 359 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on use of equipment

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. New Skies Satellite BV
382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court
325
citing judgments

An amendment to the Income Tax Act, such as the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) defining royalty, does not automatically override or alter the definition of 'royalty' as provided in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) unless the DTAA itself is bilaterally amended. The definition of royalty in a DTAA remains unaffected by unilateral changes to domestic law.

DIT v. Nokia Networks OY
358 ITR 259 · 2013 · High Court
276
citing judgments

Payments for the supply of software along with telecom equipment are not in the nature of royalty if they are for the use of a copyrighted article, not the copyright itself. Such payments are not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE).

Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. v. ITO
361 ITR 575 · 2014 · High Court
156
citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment or copyrighted articles constitute royalty income under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, necessitating TDS deduction under section 195 and attracting disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-compliance.

DDIT v. Savvis Communication Corporation
69 Taxmann.com 106 · 2016 · ITAT
107
citing judgments

Payments for web hosting services, including data back-up, maintenance, security, and uninterrupted services, are not taxable as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, as they do not constitute 'consideration for use of, or right to use, scientific equipment'.

Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd. v. DDIT
11 SOT 578 · 2007 · ITAT
99
citing judgments

Payments for data processing services using a mainframe computer and specialized software are not taxable as fees for the use of equipment if the Indian entity lacks independent rights or physical access to use the computer or software.

Bharti Airtel v. ITO (TDS)
67 Taxmann.com 223 · 2016 · High Court
53
citing judgments

Payment for human intervention to install or put equipment in place, distinct from human intervention involved in the transportation of calls between networks, does not constitute Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act.

Asia Satellite Telecommunication Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CITT
85 ITD 478 · 2003 · ITAT
44
citing judgments

Payments for transponder services do not constitute payment for the use of equipment and therefore do not qualify as royalty income under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act for a non-resident. The use of satellite transponder services by broadcasters is not considered the use of equipment.

Judgments citing use of equipment

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 4997/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1999-2000
Section 143(3)

that was a case in which the assessee had provided its clients its system and application programming interface, including interactive features and use of equipment. In the present case, however, as the agreement specifically provides in Article 8, at page 8 of the agreement, „all equipment necessary for reception

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (I.T) RG. 2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 4996/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1998-1999
Section 143(3)

that was a case in which the assessee had provided its clients its system and application programming interface, including interactive features and use of equipment. In the present case, however, as the agreement specifically provides in Article 8, at page 8 of the agreement, „all equipment necessary for reception

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1345/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 195Section 201(1)

Coats:  The payment made by assessee to J&P Coats does not constitute Royalty;  There is no ‘use of ’ or ‘right to use’ of equipment and thereby, the payment cannot be constituted to be royalty;  That secret does not qualify process and is restricted only to formula for the purpose ... facts concluding that the payments made by the Appellant to JPCL constitute charges for the use of or right to use of equipment and process and thereby constitute royalty as defined under explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 13(3) of the India

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1344/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 195Section 201(1)

Coats:  The payment made by assessee to J&P Coats does not constitute Royalty;  There is no ‘use of ’ or ‘right to use’ of equipment and thereby, the payment cannot be constituted to be royalty;  That secret does not qualify process and is restricted only to formula for the purpose ... facts concluding that the payments made by the Appellant to JPCL constitute charges for the use of or right to use of equipment and process and thereby constitute royalty as defined under explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 13(3) of the India

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2890/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranm/S Honeywell Technolgoy Solutions Jt. Cit, Special Range 3 Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building Survey No. 96 & 97, Boganahalli 6Th Block, Koramangala Village & Survey No. 72/2 & 72/5 Vs. Bengaluru 560095 Doddakananahalli Village Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru 560103 Pan – Aaach4151J Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2022

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 2Section 2(2)Section 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU “A” BENCH, BENGALURU Before Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President and Shri B.R. Baskaran

ITO (TDS)- 2(1)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Rainbow Devices Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1446/MUM/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1446/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-2020) Ito (Tds)-2(1)(4) बिधम/ M/S. Rainbow Devices Trust Room No.612, 6Th Floor, K. C/O. Axis Trustee Services Vs. G. Mittal Ayurvedic Ltd. 2Nd Floor, 29 South West, Hospital Building, Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400002. Ruby It Park (Ruby Mills) Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aadtr3790H आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1447/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-2020) बिधम/ Ito (Tds)-2(1)(4) M/S. Rent-A- Device Trust Room No.612, 6Th Floor, K. C/O. Axis Trustee Services Vs. G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Ltd. 2Nd Floor, 29 South West, Building, Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400002. Ruby It Park (Ruby Mills) Dadar (West), Mumbai- 400028. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadtr4732R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyp (DR)
Section 194Section 194ISection 201(1)

Appellant to OPC should be in the nature of rent or for that matter, the agreement has to be for the use of equipment. The Appellant has clearly submitted that there is.no rental agreement between OPC and the Appellant for the use of mobile handsets and, therefore, the payment made

Atos Information Technology Hk Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) - 1(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7205/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2011-12
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

right to use of any process which is given or made available to SCB. Here, in this case there is absolutely no use of equipment also as alleged by the Department within the definition given in clause (iv a) of Explanation ... definition of royalty and the said definition has been widened to that extent only. Thus, there is no concept of right to use of equipment here in this case. So far as applicability of Explanation 5 & 6 are concerned, we agree with the contentions of ld. Counsel, as reproduced above

DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(2)(1), New Delhi vs. Carrier Corporation, Usa

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5083/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi01 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit (International Carrier Corporation Taxation), Circle – 1(2)(1) Vs 100, West Tenth Street, New Delhi Wilmington De 19801, Usa Pan No. Aaecc4806H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115A

nature of Fee for Included Services [FIS] taxable under Article 12(4) of the Indo-US DTAA and also taxable as Royalty for use of equipment under the IT Act as well as Article 12(3) of the Indo-US DTAA. 2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 556/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

facts, by holding that the 8.1 payments made towards bandwidth and lease charges aggregating to INR 41,27,602 are towards ‘use of equipment’ as envisaged under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and thus, has erred in holding that the same is subject to withholding ... erred in law and on facts, by holding that the above payments are in the nature of royalty for ‘use or right to use the equipment’, on the erroneous presumption that the Appellant acquires significant economic and possessory interest in the bandwidth hired. IT(TP)A No.492 & 451/B/2015 & 402 & 556/B/2016

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 402/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

facts, by holding that the 8.1 payments made towards bandwidth and lease charges aggregating to INR 41,27,602 are towards ‘use of equipment’ as envisaged under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and thus, has erred in holding that the same is subject to withholding ... erred in law and on facts, by holding that the above payments are in the nature of royalty for ‘use or right to use the equipment’, on the erroneous presumption that the Appellant acquires significant economic and possessory interest in the bandwidth hired. IT(TP)A No.492 & 451/B/2015 & 402 & 556/B/2016

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 492/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

facts, by holding that the 8.1 payments made towards bandwidth and lease charges aggregating to INR 41,27,602 are towards ‘use of equipment’ as envisaged under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and thus, has erred in holding that the same is subject to withholding ... erred in law and on facts, by holding that the above payments are in the nature of royalty for ‘use or right to use the equipment’, on the erroneous presumption that the Appellant acquires significant economic and possessory interest in the bandwidth hired. IT(TP)A No.492 & 451/B/2015 & 402 & 556/B/2016

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 459/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

facts, by holding that the 8.1 payments made towards bandwidth and lease charges aggregating to INR 41,27,602 are towards ‘use of equipment’ as envisaged under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and thus, has erred in holding that the same is subject to withholding ... erred in law and on facts, by holding that the above payments are in the nature of royalty for ‘use or right to use the equipment’, on the erroneous presumption that the Appellant acquires significant economic and possessory interest in the bandwidth hired. IT(TP)A No.492 & 451/B/2015 & 402 & 556/B/2016

ACIT, Circle- 21(2), New Delhi vs. Ruchi Malls Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5222/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. T. Kipgen, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, FCA
Section 143(3)

cannot be treated as business income, inasmuch as no services were provided to the tenants and as a matter of fact, for the use of equipments, fixtures, escalators, Air Conditioners etc. the receipt amounts to rent because without these equipments, the lease will not be meaningful. According

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 5, New Delhi vs. Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 889/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

technology of manufacture and related processes for auto-catalysts business; iii) Training of employees of the appellant in relation to the use of equipment and technology provided by JMUK; iv) Right to use the world renowned and established brand name “Johnson Matthey” in order to sell its products

Addl.CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi vs. Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 279/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

technology of manufacture and related processes for auto-catalysts business; iii) Training of employees of the appellant in relation to the use of equipment and technology provided by JMUK; iv) Right to use the world renowned and established brand name “Johnson Matthey” in order to sell its products

Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 13(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 253/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

technology of manufacture and related processes for auto-catalysts business; iii) Training of employees of the appellant in relation to the use of equipment and technology provided by JMUK; iv) Right to use the world renowned and established brand name “Johnson Matthey” in order to sell its products

Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 13(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 252/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

technology of manufacture and related processes for auto-catalysts business; iii) Training of employees of the appellant in relation to the use of equipment and technology provided by JMUK; iv) Right to use the world renowned and established brand name “Johnson Matthey” in order to sell its products

Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2209/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

technology of manufacture and related processes for auto-catalysts business; iii) Training of employees of the appellant in relation to the use of equipment and technology provided by JMUK; iv) Right to use the world renowned and established brand name “Johnson Matthey” in order to sell its products

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2025/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

technology of manufacture and related processes for auto-catalysts business; iii) Training of employees of the appellant in relation to the use of equipment and technology provided by JMUK; iv) Right to use the world renowned and established brand name “Johnson Matthey” in order to sell its products