← All Phrases

“double taxation”

MiscellaneousGeneralGeneral4,703 judgments

The decision most relied on for double taxation is DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV (382 ITR 114), cited in 325 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on double taxation

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.

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft
310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court
259
citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

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.

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.

CIT v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust
144 ITR 146 · 1983 · High Court
124
citing judgments

Sections 4 and 5 of the Income Tax Act, which define total income and chargeability, are subject to Section 90, meaning that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override the Act's provisions in case of a conflict.

Assessing Officer (International Taxation) v. Nestle SA
458 ITR 756 · 2023 · Supreme Court
122
citing judgments

The benefit of a Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is available only upon notification by the Government. A notification under section 90(1) is a necessary and mandatory condition for giving effect to a DTAA or any protocol that alters existing law.

Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna v. ITO
135 Taxmann.com 358 · 2022 · ITAT
109
citing judgments

The filing of Form 67 for claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is a directory requirement, not mandatory. Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of FTC due to delay in filing this form. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override domestic law.

CIT v. Havells India Ltd.
352 ITR 376 · 2013 · High Court
97
citing judgments

For royalty income, especially in the context of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA), the 'source of income' is the determinative factor for taxability, rather than merely the 'source of receipt'.

Judgments citing double taxation

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range- 12, Bangalore

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

ITA 125/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri, K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar K. Ganeshan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 43B

learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not appreciating that the proviso to Section 201 are applicable to this case and the disallowance made amounts to double taxation;” 31. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that assessee has made payment to GMR Sports P Ltd. being the franchisee

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2508/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

services rendered by the payee. The assessee submitted that the payments were in the nature of independent professional services covered under Article 15 of Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty (DTAA) between India and UK. However, Ld. AO held that Article 15 would cover only individuals. Accordingly, the payment was held

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2507/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

services rendered by the payee. The assessee submitted that the payments were in the nature of independent professional services covered under Article 15 of Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty (DTAA) between India and UK. However, Ld. AO held that Article 15 would cover only individuals. Accordingly, the payment was held

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2506/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

services rendered by the payee. The assessee submitted that the payments were in the nature of independent professional services covered under Article 15 of Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty (DTAA) between India and UK. However, Ld. AO held that Article 15 would cover only individuals. Accordingly, the payment was held

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2505/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

services rendered by the payee. The assessee submitted that the payments were in the nature of independent professional services covered under Article 15 of Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty (DTAA) between India and UK. However, Ld. AO held that Article 15 would cover only individuals. Accordingly, the payment was held

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1516/BANG/2013[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

M/s.Google India Private Limited. “Royalty” under the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 and Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Ireland? III(2) Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal is perverse in as much as the conclusions ... received by GIL to be royalty as defined in section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act r.w. Article 12(3) of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India-Ireland DTAA) and thus chargeable to tax in India in the hands of GIL. The case of the assessee is that

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1515/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

M/s.Google India Private Limited. “Royalty” under the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 and Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Ireland? III(2) Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal is perverse in as much as the conclusions ... received by GIL to be royalty as defined in section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act r.w. Article 12(3) of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India-Ireland DTAA) and thus chargeable to tax in India in the hands of GIL. The case of the assessee is that

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1514/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

M/s.Google India Private Limited. “Royalty” under the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 and Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Ireland? III(2) Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal is perverse in as much as the conclusions ... received by GIL to be royalty as defined in section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act r.w. Article 12(3) of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India-Ireland DTAA) and thus chargeable to tax in India in the hands of GIL. The case of the assessee is that

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1513/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

M/s.Google India Private Limited. “Royalty” under the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 and Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Ireland? III(2) Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal is perverse in as much as the conclusions ... received by GIL to be royalty as defined in section 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act r.w. Article 12(3) of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India-Ireland DTAA) and thus chargeable to tax in India in the hands of GIL. The case of the assessee is that

M/S. the Mathworks, Inc, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation, Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 364/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.364/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2018-2019 M/S.The Mathworks, Inc. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick Income-Tax, V. Massachusetts 01760 International Taxation Cir.2(2) Bengaluru. United Sates Of America Pan : Aafct7230H. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Sumeet Kurana, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karhihalli, CIT -DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

aforesaid income earned cannot be treated as (i) royalty u/s 9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act and Article 12 of the India- US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), (ii) fees for included services (FIS) as per Article 12 of the DTAA and Fees for Technical Services ... royalties' and subjecting the same to income-tax under section 9(1)( vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (The Treaty'). 3. The learned AO / Hon'ble DRP has grossly erred in relying on the Karnataka High Court Ruling in the case

Dy CIT (Int.Tax)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 762/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.762 & 761/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Dy Cit(Int.Tax)-2(1)(1) M/S. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd, Room No. 1713, 17Th बिधम/ 1. Raffles Link, 03/04-01, Floor, Air India Building, Vs. South Lobby, Singapore, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Foreign, Singapore 400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccc7328N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Bharti Singh-Sr, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Paras Savla/Pratik Poddar/Harsh Shah, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 28.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 25.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C For Ay 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Singh-Sr, DRFor Respondent: Shri. Paras Savla/Pratik
Section 143(3)

under the Singapore Companies Act. The assessee is a tax resident of Singapore and accordingly, is entitled to the beneficial provisions of India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement („DTAA‟). The assessee is registered as Foreign Institutional Investor („FII‟) with Securities and Exchange Board of India („SEBI‟) and conducts portfolio investments

Dy CIT-(Int-Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 761/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.762 & 761/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Dy Cit(Int.Tax)-2(1)(1) M/S. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd, Room No. 1713, 17Th बिधम/ 1. Raffles Link, 03/04-01, Floor, Air India Building, Vs. South Lobby, Singapore, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Foreign, Singapore 400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccc7328N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Bharti Singh-Sr, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Paras Savla/Pratik Poddar/Harsh Shah, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 28.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 25.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C For Ay 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Singh-Sr, DRFor Respondent: Shri. Paras Savla/Pratik
Section 143(3)

under the Singapore Companies Act. The assessee is a tax resident of Singapore and accordingly, is entitled to the beneficial provisions of India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement („DTAA‟). The assessee is registered as Foreign Institutional Investor („FII‟) with Securities and Exchange Board of India („SEBI‟) and conducts portfolio investments

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The DIT (I.T), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3345/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. The Director Of Income-Tax (It) 3Rd Floor, Tax Department 1St Floor, Scindia House 23-25, M.G. Road, Fort N.M. Road Ballard Pier Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai - 400038 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Fenil Bhatt Department Represented By : Shri. Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

Assessee submits that the dispute regarding payment of tax by MaterCard and VISA was resolved under the Mutual Agreement Procedure ("MAP") adopted under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA ('India-USA tax treaty"). As per the same, it has been held that the fees received by MasterCard

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Astrazenca Pharma India Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 82/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.82/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Income-Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit V. Manyata Embassy Business, (Ltu) Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 045. Pan : Aabca1722B. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.170/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India The Assistant Commissioner Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Of Income-Tax, Large Tax V. Manyata Embassy Business, Payers Unit (Ltu) Bengaluru. Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bangalore – 560 045. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2010- 2011. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Pharmaceutical Products. It Also Undertakes Co- Ordination Of Clinical Trial Services. For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Taxable

For Appellant: Sri.Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)Section 92C

dividend, being taxable in the hands of non-resident shareholders, ought to have been restricted to the rate prescribed under the India-Sweden DTAA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 14.2 Based on facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the rate of tax on the dividend paid

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.82/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Income-Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit V. Manyata Embassy Business, (Ltu) Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 045. Pan : Aabca1722B. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.170/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India The Assistant Commissioner Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Of Income-Tax, Large Tax V. Manyata Embassy Business, Payers Unit (Ltu) Bengaluru. Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bangalore – 560 045. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2010- 2011. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Pharmaceutical Products. It Also Undertakes Co- Ordination Of Clinical Trial Services. For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Taxable

For Appellant: Sri.Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)Section 92C

dividend, being taxable in the hands of non-resident shareholders, ought to have been restricted to the rate prescribed under the India-Sweden DTAA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 14.2 Based on facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the rate of tax on the dividend paid

Ntt Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd.(Formerly Known As Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (It)2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 325/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountnat Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sunil MotilalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 115A(1)(a)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 194LSection 234ASection 234B

management fees received by the assessee as fees for technical services under the provisions of the Act as well as under India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’). 4. The brief facts of the case, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is a company incorporated ... outside India, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) for granting relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation, then, in relation to the assessee to whom such agreement applies, the provisions of this Act shall apply to the extent they are more

Anchor Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT - Ccc- 7(2)`, Mumbai

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

ITA 4940/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyanchor Electricals Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax, Central 3Rd Floor, I-Think Techno Circle-7(2) Campus, Pokhran Road Room No.655, 6Th Floor, No.2, Thane (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 400607 Road, Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaeca2190C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: M.P. Lohia &For Respondent: Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

proceedings the ld. Counsel referred page no. 148 of the paper book pertaining to copy of resolution under Article 25 of the Indo Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Convention r.w.s 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2013-14 and 2014- 15 dated 21.10.2019 wherein it is categorically

M/S. Tivo Tech Private Limited (Formerly Known As Veveo (India) Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 237/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 37

situation IT(TP)A No.237/Bang/2021 Page 21 of 29 computing interest on outstanding receivables and loans and advances to associated enterprise would amount to double taxation. Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Orange Business Services India Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 286 has observed that

ITO (International Taxation) 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. Shri Rajeev Suresh Gehi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 792/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Is Delayed By 14 Days. In The Present Appeal, The Impugned Order Dated 11-02-2022 Was Received By The Revenue On The Same Date. Thus, As Per The Provisions Of Section 253(3) Of The Act, The Revenue Was Required The Filed The Appeal Within 60 Days From The Received The Order. However, The Revenue Filed Appeal, For The Year Under 2 Shri Rajeev Suresh Gehi

Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)

Indian National, fiscally domiciled in and tax resident of UAE for over three decades and therefore he is eligible for benefit of India UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. As per information received from the DDIT (Investigation), Mumbai it was noticed that the assessee has paid cash amounting

M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (Sucessor to Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation 3(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1813/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar
Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 4(2)

assessee in default for not deducting tax at source while making such payments. In reply, assessee by placing reliance upon India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’) submitted that services rendered by the foreign vendors are not in the nature of ‘make available’ as they had not imparted any training