“tax treaty”

Chapter X-A - GAARSection 102(11)Section 102(11)1,494 judgments

The decision most relied on for tax treaty is Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), cited in 691 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on tax treaty

Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan

263 ITR 706 · 2003 · Supreme Court

691

citing judgments

A citizen is free to carry on business within the law, and mere tax planning without a motive to evade taxes through colorable devices is not frowned upon. The liability to taxation, for the purpose of tax treaty application, is a legal situation, not the fiscal fact of actual payment.

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.

India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India

341 ITR 1 · 2012 · Supreme Court

295

citing judgments

Legitimate tax planning is permissible, allowing taxpayers to arrange their affairs to minimize tax liabilities while respecting the "look at test" for transaction genuineness and the separate entity principle in corporate taxation. The source of funds for treaty-beneficial structures does not automatically invalidate the transaction.

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.

Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT

95 ITD 269 · 2005 · High Court

213

citing judgments

Revenue must demonstrate the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) of a foreign enterprise in India, including establishing that transactions underlying a Dependent Agent PE were not at arm's length. Income from the sale of goods is not taxable in India if title and risk in the goods pass outside India.

(i) Formula One World Championship Ltd. v. CIT

394 ITR 80 · 2017 · Supreme Court

200

citing judgments

This case provides foundational principles that illuminate the contours of the concept of 'Permanent Establishment' (PE) under tax treaties, especially regarding a 'fixed place' PE.

DIT v. Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd.

346 ITR 504 · 2012 · High Court

171

citing judgments

For fees for technical services to be taxable under a tax treaty's 'make available' clause, a transfer of technology enabling the recipient to independently perform the service in the future is necessary, beyond mere service rendition. The case also clarifies that re-insurance services do not constitute 'imparting' of information taxable as royalty.

Judgments citing tax treaty

Monika Arya, Telangana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 913/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90Section 90(2)

income.” 4. The Assessee claimed FTC of Rs. 4,73,779/- u/s. 90 of the Act read with Article 24 of India Australia tax treaty ("DTAA") in a revised return of income filed on 31.8.2018. The Assessee had not filed the Form 67 before filing the return of income ... procedural provision. As the provisions of DTAA override the provisions of the Act, the Assessee has vested right to claim the FTC under the tax treaty, the same cannot be disallowed for mere delay in compliance of a procedural provision. 14. The learned DR reiterated the stand of the revenue

Bnp Paribas, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It), Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4449/MUM/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satyapal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 2

tax applicable to domestic companies, is also applicable to the assessee in accordance with the provisions of non- discrimination clause of India-France Tax Treaty. This issue has recurring history 3 4 M/s.BNP Paribas. and it is coming from A.Y. 2001-2002 to A.Y. 2020-2021 and in all these ... M/s.BNP Paribas. Singapore branch (service agent) to the tune of Rs 40.78 10,733/ under Article 13 of the India-France Tax Treaty. We find that the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2013- 14 in ITA No. 552/Mum/2018, dated 22.04.2019 had adjudicated the said

Gecom International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1613/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR

Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 5(2)Section 9

under the provisions of the Act and Double Tax Avoidance Agreement entered between India and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland(Tax Treaty) without appreciating that income of the foreign university on account of payments for examination fee made by the Appellant: (a) that not accrued/arisen in India ... deemed to have accrued arisen in India under Section 9 of the Act, and (c) was not taxable in India under the Tax Treaty. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in alleging and the Hon’ble CIT(A) further erred

Bay Capital India Fund Limited, Mauritius vs. Assistance Commissioner of Income Tax, Air India, Nariman Point, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4475/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: ShriAnil Sant – Addl.CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

against the long term capital gains claimed as not eligible for tax under the Tax Treaty of INR 26,36,44,954 and then considering balance long term capital gains of INR 7,40,25,496 as not chargeable to tax under the Tax Treaty. 2. The Assessing Officer/DRP ought ... Assessing Officer and DRP, that the brought forward long-term losses should be first set-off against exempt longterm capital gains under the Tax Treaty and only balance capital gains should be claimed as exempt under the Tax Treaty. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the Appellant also stated that

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 718/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarirandshri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Harischandra Naik, CIT-DR

Section 2Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

consideration of the Tribunal. In that case, the Tribunal was dealing with the scope of Article 13(4)(c) of the Indo-UK tax treaty which is admittedly in parimateria with Article 12(4) of the India-USA tax treaty with which we are presently concerned. The majority view ... that in order to attract the provisions of the said article of the tax treaty, not only the services should be technical in nature but should be such as to result in making the technology available to person receiving the technical services in question. The Tribunal also referred to with

Temenos Headquarters Sa, Switzerland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 are allowed and stay applications filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 1575/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Ragunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1573, 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 & S.A. Nos. 20, 21/Chny/2024 [In Ita Nos. 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2021-22 Temenos Headquarters Sa, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Rue De Lecole De V. Income Tax, Chimie, International Taxation -2(2), 1205 Geneva, Chennai. Switzerland- 1205. [Pan:Aadct-7868-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

annual maintenance charges being not ancillary or subsidiary to any royalty income cannot be brought to tax under Article 12(4)(a) of the tax treaty. Therefore, it has to be seen, whether it can come within the purview of Article ... 1575/Chny/2023 SA Nos: 20 & 21/Chny/2024 the tax treaty. As could be seen, to be considered as FIS under Article 12(4)(b) under the tax treaty, the make available condition has to be satisfied. In the facts of the present appeal, the Departmental Authorities have failed to demonstrate that while

Temenos Headquarters Sa, Switzerland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 are allowed and stay applications filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 1574/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Temenos Headquarters Sa, Switzerland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 are allowed and stay applications filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 1573/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Caterpillar India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2749/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2749/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. Dcit 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit-1 Taramani Road, Taramani, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.22/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.2749/Chny/2017) (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. बनाम/ 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai-34. Taramani Road, Taramani, Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (Cross-Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A.Sasikumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar (CIT)- Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

does not make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, knowhow or processes, for it to be taxable under the India - USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('tax treaty'). The learned AO and the Hon'ble DRP ought to have appreciated that once a service is not taxable under the tax treaty

Prasad Nimmagadda, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 185/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.185/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Prasad Nimmagadda Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(2) Pan:Abkpn3078N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 143(2)Section 5

According to the Assessing Officer, as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTA) between India and Singapore tax treaty between the two countries to avoid the double taxation of income that may flow between the two countries in respect of various services. Since the assessee has neither offered the salary

DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Siemens Ag, Mumbai

ITA 2179/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2153/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI B R BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 9(1)(vi)

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Limited (2007) 158 Тахman 259 (SC) and the tax Treaty between India and Germany including the protocol thereto and concluded that the income arising from the offshore supply of equipment is not chargeable to tax ... arbitration award the compensation for delayed payment cannot be regarded in the nature of interest for the purposes of Article 11 of the Tax Treaty. 52. On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon the order of the ld. DRP. 53. After considering the relevant facts and submissions made

Suchi Agrawal, Noida vs. ITO Ward 5(2)(4), Noida

ITA 601/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Akash Vajpai, Adv. and Ms. Shweta ShandiyalFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

601/Del/2024 Suchi Agrawal provisions of DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act, the assessee has vested right to claim the FTC under the tax treaty, and the same cannot be disallowed for mere delay in compliance of a procedural provision. In other words, we would like to submit that ... provision, therefore, the provisions of DTAA override the provisions of the Act. As the assessee has vested right to claim the FTC under the tax treaty and the same cannot be disallowed for mere delay in compliance of a procedural provision. Page 8 of 11 ITA No.- 601/Del/2024 Suchi Agrawal

ACIT Circle 25(1), New Delhi vs. Verizon Communications India Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 360/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

that the said payments were in the nature of royalty u/s. 9(1 )(vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the India US Tax Treaty and therefore, the assessee was required to deduct TDS on these payments as per section 195 of the Act. The assessee company stated before ... insertion of Explanation 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act cannot override the beneficial provisions of tax treaties. The assessee also pointed out before the AO that its case on the issue of telecom payments made to MCII and MCICS is squarely covered by the decision

Kony Inc, United States of America vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1572/CHNY/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Ragunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1572/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Kony Inc., Deputy Commissioner Of 5301, Southwest Parkway, V. Income Tax, Suite 250, International Taxation -1(2), Austin, Texas, Chennai. Usa - 5301 [Pan: Aaeck-4771-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

Assessing Officer held the view that the receipts from annual maintenance charges of the software are in the nature of FIS/FTS, both under the tax treaty as well as under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, he brought to tax the amount of Rs.1,23,20,383/-. Learned ... annual maintenance charges being not ancillary or subsidiary to any royalty income cannot be brought to tax under Article 12(4)(a) of the tax treaty. Therefore, it has to be seen, whether it can come within the purview of Article 12(4)(b) of :-8-: ITA. No: 1572/Chny/2023

Gartner Ireland Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax-2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2460/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Gartner Ireland Ltd., Dcit-2(3)(2), 3Rd Floor, Two Park Place, 17Th Floor, 1711, Air India Hatch Street, Dublin 2, Vs. Building, Nariman Point, Ireland D02 Np94. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaccg 2919 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Farooq Irani Revenue By : Mr. A.K. Ambastha, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 12/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024

For Appellant: Mr. Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Ambastha, Sr. DR

Section 234DSection 9(1)(vi)

sale and (ii) for sale to ‘Gartner India’ for its internal use for its internal use . The assessee is eligible to claim the tax treaty assessee is eligible to claim the tax treaty benefits which have benefits which have not been disputed either by the Asses been disputed either ... taxable in absence of PE in India as per the beneficial provisions of the India as per the beneficial provisions of the India-Ireland Tax Treaty. Ireland Tax Treaty. Further, the Ld. Counsel Ld. Counsel referred to Paper Book pages 46 to 48 of referred to Paper Book pages

M/S. Bengal Tiger Line Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT, Intl Tax 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1419/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Ragunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1419/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Bengal Tiger Line Pte Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of 200, Cantonment Road, V. Income Tax, 13 01, South Point, International Taxation -1(1), Singapore. No. 16, Greams Road, [Pan: Aadcb-6864-F] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024

For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 133Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44B

incorporated in Singapore. The assessee has claimed exemption from tax on income received from shipping operations in India in pursuant to the India-Singapore tax treaty under Article 8 of India-Singapore DTAA, the tax resident of Singapore involved in the operations of ships in international traffic, is assessable

Balasubramanyan Ashok, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 408/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. Vaidehi .G, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Shamala .D.D, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 6Section 90

procedural provision. As the provisions of DTAA override the provisions of the Act, the Assessee has vested right to claim the FTC under the tax treaty, the same cannot be disallowed for mere delay in compliance of a procedural provision. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of Coordinate Bench

Bhavik Singhal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 107/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Owens Corning, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissione of Income Tax _(International Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4627/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla a/w MsFor Respondent: 21.05.2024

Section 9(1)(vi)

Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') as well as Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered between India and USA ('India-USA Tax Treaty) 1.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law prevailing on the subject, the lease rentals received ... royalty' either under the Act or under the provisions of the India-USA Tax Treaty. The stand taken by the AO/ DRP in this regard is erroneous, misconceived and not in accordance with the law. 1.3 The Appellant submits that the AO be directed to delete the addition