“non-resident”

Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd As Trustee for Fccb Issued by Jindal Saw Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 784/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Citicorp Trustee Company बिधम/ Dcit (International Ltd. As Trustee For Fccb Taxation)-2(1)(1) Vs. Issued By Jindal Saw Ltd. 17Th Floor, 1713, Air India Citigroup Centre, Canada Building, Nariman Point, Square, Canary Wharf Mumbai-400021. London E14 5Lb United Kingdom. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecc0452D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anish Thackar/Nikhil Tiwari/Lekh Mehta Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Dated 19.01.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice The Ground No. 2 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Against The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Without Satisfying The Essential Condition Prescribed Under The Act; & Therefore Contends That The Action Of The Ao Is Ab-Initio-Void. 3. In Order To Examine The Legal Issue Raised By The Assessee, It Is Necessary To Look Into The Reasons Recorded By Ao To Reopen The Assessment Which Is Reproduced As Under: -

Company Ltd. 4. As noted, on the aforesaid reason, the AO has resorted to re- open the assessment of the assessee which is a non-resident company which action of AO has been challenged for non-fulfillment of the condition- precedent to usurp the re-opening jurisdiction. Brief facts regarding ... this issue are that the assessee (Citicorp Trustee) is a company incorporated in United Kingdom (UK) and is a non-resident as per section 6 of the Act. And according to assessee, since it has not earned any taxable income in India, it did not file any return of income

Tech Data(Singapore) Pte Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Comm. of Income Tax (It) Circle -4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.2367/मुं/ 2022 (िन.व.2019-20) Tech Data (Singapore) Pte Limited, 10, #05-17/20 Techpoint, Ang Mo Kio Street 65, Singapore -569059 Pan: Aagct-0951-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation, Circle -4(1)(2) Mumbai . ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Avneesh Tiwari सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 19/07/2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act], For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Five Grounds. The Gist Of Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Appeal Is As Under: (I) Challenge To Validity Of Assessment – Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act Issued Without Authority.

first category deals with cases in which computer software is purchased directly by an end-user, resident in India, from a foreign, non-resident supplier or manufacturer. (ii) The second category of cases deals with resident Indian companies that act as distributors or resellers, by purchasing computer software from foreign ... non-resident suppliers or manufacturers and then reselling the same to resident Indian end-users.- (iii) The third category concerns cases wherein the distributor happens to be a foreign, non-resident vendor, who, after purchasing software from a foreign, non- resident seller, resells the same to resident Indian distributors

Skf India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

Learned AO ought to have held that the rate of DDT in respect of dividend paid by Appellant to its non-resident share holder SKF U.K. Limited, which is a resident of United Kingdom, should be capped at the rate of tax on Dividend Income as per Article

Nan Lian Ship Management Llc, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD)(Int Tax)-3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenan Lian Ship Management Llc V. Jcit (Osd) (Intl. Tax) – 3(3)(1) 303, The Atrium Center Room No. 1630, 16Th Floor Khalid Bin Al Walled Road Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Bur Dubai Po Box No. 82289 Dubai, Uae Nan Lian Ship Management Llc C/O. Nishit M. Gandhi Chambers 2 & 3, Ground Floor Cosmos Trade Place, Khatau Building Alkesh Dinesh Mody Marg Opp. Bombay Stock Exchange Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aagcn0478E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Royalty in terms of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; (ii) The Ld. DRP failed to appreciate that the Appellant is a Non-resident Shipping Company and the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) to that effect for the relevant year was furnished and which should have been considered before arriving ... alone is excluded in 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. In other words, royalty payable by a resident in India to a non-resident in respect of any right, property or information used or services utilised for the purposes of business or profession carried

Bnp Paribas, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internationl Taxation)Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

That the assessee has considered the rate of tax applicable to Indian companies carrying on similar business instead of the rate applicable to non-residents and that this issue when contended has been held in favour of the Revenue by the ITAT in the case of the assessee ... Reference was made to non-discrimination clause in the Treaty, as per which there should not be any discrimination between the domestic and the non-resident company. The Tribunal, however, referred to the Explanation in the Section 90, inserted in the IT Act with retrospective effect from

Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Cir 1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

held that the levy of the dividend distribution tax u/s 115-O of the Income-tax Act 1961, on payment of the dividend to non-resident shareholders should be at the rate specified in the relevant article dealing with taxability of dividends in the agreement of Double taxation Avoidance Agreement ... DTAA) between India and the country of residence of the non-resident shareholders and ought to have consequently granted a refund for the tax paid in excess thereof.” M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 56. We heard both the parties with regard to the admission of the additional ground. We notice that

Estate of Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-8(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

assessed income of the assessee. 3. Learned AR submitted that the assessee (Shri Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta) passed away on 7.4.2022 and he was a non-resident during A.Y. 2002-03. He submitted that under the provisions of section 168(1) of the Act, residential status of the executor would depend ... status of the present as “Resident”. However, it is the contention of the legal heir that the residential status of Ramniklal R Mehta was “Non-resident” during the A.Y. 2002-03 and hence the Assessing Officer was not justified in assessing the Estate of Ramniklal R Mehta in the status

Estate of Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-8(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

assessed income of the assessee. 3. Learned AR submitted that the assessee (Shri Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta) passed away on 7.4.2022 and he was a non-resident during A.Y. 2002-03. He submitted that under the provisions of section 168(1) of the Act, residential status of the executor would depend ... status of the present as “Resident”. However, it is the contention of the legal heir that the residential status of Ramniklal R Mehta was “Non-resident” during the A.Y. 2002-03 and hence the Assessing Officer was not justified in assessing the Estate of Ramniklal R Mehta in the status

Estate of Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-8(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

assessed income of the assessee. 3. Learned AR submitted that the assessee (Shri Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta) passed away on 7.4.2022 and he was a non-resident during A.Y. 2002-03. He submitted that under the provisions of section 168(1) of the Act, residential status of the executor would depend ... status of the present as “Resident”. However, it is the contention of the legal heir that the residential status of Ramniklal R Mehta was “Non-resident” during the A.Y. 2002-03 and hence the Assessing Officer was not justified in assessing the Estate of Ramniklal R Mehta in the status

Estate of Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-8(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

assessed income of the assessee. 3. Learned AR submitted that the assessee (Shri Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta) passed away on 7.4.2022 and he was a non-resident during A.Y. 2002-03. He submitted that under the provisions of section 168(1) of the Act, residential status of the executor would depend ... status of the present as “Resident”. However, it is the contention of the legal heir that the residential status of Ramniklal R Mehta was “Non-resident” during the A.Y. 2002-03 and hence the Assessing Officer was not justified in assessing the Estate of Ramniklal R Mehta in the status

Estate of Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-8(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

assessed income of the assessee. 3. Learned AR submitted that the assessee (Shri Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta) passed away on 7.4.2022 and he was a non-resident during A.Y. 2002-03. He submitted that under the provisions of section 168(1) of the Act, residential status of the executor would depend ... status of the present as “Resident”. However, it is the contention of the legal heir that the residential status of Ramniklal R Mehta was “Non-resident” during the A.Y. 2002-03 and hence the Assessing Officer was not justified in assessing the Estate of Ramniklal R Mehta in the status