“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

Appdynamics International Limited, Noida vs. ACIT Intl Taxation Circle 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2413/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

copyright and consideration received for supply of copyrighted article / software did not fall within the definition of royalty in terms of the relevant tax treaty. On the basis of judgment in the case of Engineering Analysis (supra) delivered on March 2, 2021, i.e., delivered after the filing of the return

Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 863/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.4981/मुं/2017 (िन.व.2010-11) आअसं.3065/मुं/2018 (िन.व.2011-12) आअसं.820/मुं/2019(िन.व.2012-13) आअसं.863/मुं/2022 (िन.व.2013-14) The Bank Of Nova Scotia, Mittal Towers, B-Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaacb-1536-H ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3,/Dcit (It) 1(2)(1)Mumbai Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ....."ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.4899/मुं/2017 (िन.व. 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax,(It)-1(2),Mumbai Room No.1811, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Bank Of Nova Scotia, Mittal Towers, B-Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaacb-1536-H ....."ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anil Sant, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. AR

tax refund is paid by the Government, the said interest is exempt from tax within the meaning of Article 11(3) of India -Canada tax treaty. To further support his submissions he placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) DIT vs. Credit Agricole Indosuez , 377 ITR 101(Bom) (ii) Ansaldo ... effectively connected with the PE (Permanent Establishment) either on asset test or activity test. Therefore, taxable under the Article 11(2) of Indo-Netherlands tax treaty. The Revenue carried the aforesaid decision of DHL Operations B.V. (supra) in appeal to this Court, being Income Tax Appeal No.431 of 2012. This

The Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 820/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं . 4981/मुं/2017 (नि.व.2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar andFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. AR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण मुंबई पीठ“आई”, मुंबई पीठ श्री विकास अवस्थी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री अमरजीत सिंह, लेखाकार सदस्य के

The Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) -1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3065/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. AR

Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4981/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. AR

DCIT (It) -1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4899/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. AR

First Abu Dhabi Bank Pjsc, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3279/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhfirst Abu Dhabi Bank Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Pjsc, Unit No.1101 & Income-Tax (It), Circle 1201 Platina Building, C- 2(3)(1), Room No. 1614, 59, G Block, Bandra Kurla 16Th Floor, Air India Complex, Bandra East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaecn2845F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Anil Sant Date Of Hearing 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai-2, Dated 20.07.2023 For A.Y. 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: 1. Ground No. 1: The Learned Ao Has, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Erred In Initiating & Completing Assessment Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Without Issuing A Valid Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Ie, The Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Dated 29 June 2021 For Initiating Assessment Was Issued By National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nafac) Instead Of Being Issued By The Learned Ao (I.E Jurisdictional Assessing Officer) 2. Ground No. 2:

For Appellant: Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 80G

First Abu Dhabi Bank Vs. DCIT(IT) Circle 2(3)(1) perused the Article 11 of the India-UAE Tax Treaty and extract of the same is reproduced as under: “ARTICLE 11- INTEREST 1. Interest arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State ... article 11(2).” In view of the decision of the coordinate bench and considering the provision of Article 11 of India-UAE Tax Treaty and circular no. 740 dated 17.04.1996 issued by the CBDT, we find the lower authority have not brought any contrary material to disprove the claim

Sungard Availability Services Lp, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer (It), Ward 4, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.987/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sungard Availability Services Lp, The Income Tax C/O.Suite 320, 565 Ease V Officer(It), Swedesford Road, Wayne, S Ward-4, Pune. Pennsylyania19087, Usa. B.O.Bhavan, Sector No.17, Pune Satara Road, Parvati, Pune – 411009. Pan: Abtfs0527J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Ganesh Bare – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 11.07.2023 Passed By Income Tax Officer(It), Ward-4, Pune Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, Passed In Pursuance To Directions Issued By Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp) Under Section 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.06.2023.The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : Sungard Availability Services Lp, Usa [A]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

make available any technical knowledge, skill, know-how or process and hence, not chargeable to tax in India as per provisions of Indo-US tax treaty (Article 12).” 3. The ld.AR submitted that Assessing Officer(AO) taxed the said receipts. Ld.AR submitted that for earlier years on identical facts

Vipul Parimal Thakore, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 3595/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri.Anuj Krisnadwala.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Usha Gaikwad.Sr. DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 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. 5. On the contrary, the Ld. DR submitted that fulfillment ... 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 Departmental Representative reiterated the stand

Mr John Arunkumar Diaz, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3647/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyaljohn Arunkumar Diaz Vs. Dcit-19(1), 8A, Saahil, Room No. 203, 2 Nd Floor, 14 Altamount Road, Matrumandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aecpd6518C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Mahesh Rajora.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Usha Gaikwad.Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 44ASection 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. 6. On the contrary, the Ld. DR submitted that fulfillment ... 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 Departmental Representative reiterated the stand

Power and Energy Consultants India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3420/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshpower & Energy Consultants Vs. Ito, India Pvt. Ltd, Ward-19(1), House No. U-136, Vikas Marg, Delhi Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacg3625J Assessee By : Shri Harish Chaudhary, Ca Shri Mohit Chaudhary, Ca Ms. Neetu Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Harish Chaudhary, CaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 90ASection 91

under:- “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

Ge Energy Parts Inc, Wildwood Parkway Atlanta Ga Us vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3199/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2021-22]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 44BSection 9(1)(i)Section 90

view of the provisions of Section 153 of the Act. Grounds relating to the taxability of Appellant in India under the Act and the Tax Treaty. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/ DRP grossly erred in holding that the receipts from offshore ... India both under section 9(1)(i) of the Act and Article 5 read with Article 7 of India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("Tax Treaty"). 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, Ld. AO/ DRP erred in holding that the Appellant has a business connection

ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Sheraton Overseas Management Corporation, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2392/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Amit AroraFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

assessee under the Centralized Services Agreement cannot be heated as FIS either under Article 12/4)(0) of 12/4](b) of the India-US Tax Treaty. At a natural corollary, it can only be heated as business income of the assessee. Hence, in absence of a PE in India, it will ... intended to treat the amount received by the assessee towards centralized services as fee for included services under Article 12(4)(b) of the Tax Treaty, the assessee had relied upon the decision of the Sheraton International Inc. (supra) rendered by the Tribunal and 9 the decision

Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Dublin (Ireland) vs. ACIT Circle 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

Accordingly, the additions made by the Ld. AO in the impugned case deserve to be deleted on the merit for the year under consideration. Thus, the grounds raised are allowed and appeal of asseessee ...

ITA 3672/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmastay Application No.52/Del/2024 (Ita No.3672/Del/2023) Assessment Year: 2021-22 & Assessment Year: 2021-22 Adobe Systems Software Ireland Vs Acit, Limited, Circle-1(1)(1), Dublin (Ireland), International Taxation, 4-6, Riverwalk, Citywest Business New Delhi. Campus, Saggart, Dublin 24, Ireland. Pan: Aahca7203M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate & Ms Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: Heard & Perused The Records. 2. The Stay Application In Hand Has Been Filed For The Stay Of Demand In Regard To Ay 2021-22 And, During The Course Of Argument, It Was Submitted By Ita No.52/Del/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)

company incorporated under the laws of Ireland and is a tax resident of Ireland in accordance with the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA” or “tax treaty”) between India and Ireland. Therefore, it is entitled to the beneficial provisions of the India-Ireland DTAA. During the year under consideration, ADIR ... alleged for the very first time that the Appellant is a conduit entity which is not entitled to the benefits under India-Ireland tax treaty and therefore, its income should be taxed as per India’s domestic tax law. 3.5 Ld. AO had held that even as per the provisions

Nira vs. Inh Kishoresinh Gehlot, Indiavs.CPC, Bangalore (Present Jurisdiction -Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(2), Ahmedabad), Gujarat

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1068/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1068/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Niravsinh Kishoresinh Cpc बनाम/ Gehlot Bangalore Vs. Shivam Vasant Chowk, Present Jurisdiction - Dharmaj, Petlad Dist Income Tax Officer Anand, Anand, Gujarat Ward 5(3)(2), Ahmedabad 388430 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajtpg6241P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Balaji V., Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. Dr 01/02/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/02/2024 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Appellant Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.10.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -3, Chennai (‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Intimation Order Dated 20.03.2020 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(1) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Have Heard The Rival Submissions Made By The Respective Parties & We Have Also Perused The Relevant Materials Available On Record.

For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. DR

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

Rajesh Kumar Lakhran, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-7(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/JPR/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2024

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jagdish Choudhary (Proxy)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 154Section 90

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. 5.3. Even otherwise, the said Form 67 filed

Ntt Global Data Centers & Cloud Infrastructure India Private Limited (Erstwhile Netmagic It Services Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT-10 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 2784/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blentt Global Data Centers & Cloud V. National E-Assessment Centre Infrastructure India Private Limited {Now Known As National {Erstwhile Netmagic It Services Faceless Appeal Centre} Private Limited} Delhi 7Th Floor, Hiranandani Business Park Sakinaka S.O., Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aaccn2366D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Shri Arpit Doshi & Ms. Payal Mehta Department Represented By : Shri S. Srinivasu

Section 37(1)

respect of the fees for technical services and thereby subjecting the same income to double taxation alleging non-submission of relevant clauses of tax treaties and this being a consequential ground without appreciating that the Appellant had in fact made a detailed submissions along with all the supportings of foreign ... power granted under section 90(1) of the Act, the Central Government has entered into a double tax avoidance agreement with Japan ("India- Japan tax treaty) for granting relief in respect of double taxation of income. As per section 90(2) of the Act, the assessee can take benefit

Air Liquide Global Ec Germany Gmbh, Germany vs. ACIT, Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the stay application is

ITA 2401/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 144C(13)Section 44B

concluded that the assessee had a PE in India, however, they have not established how the conditions of Article 5(1) of the tax treaty are satisfied and what is the nature of PE in India. On careful scrutiny of the assessment order and directions of learned DRP, we find

Sarva Capital Llc, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle International Tax 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2073/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nirbhay Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B.Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 112Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 270A

with the issue, whether, capital gain derived by the assessee from sale of equity shares is exempt under Article 13(4) of India-Mauritius tax Treaty. As discussed earlier, in the year under consideration, the assessee has derived capital gain from sale of equity shares of two companies, viz., Sewa ... raised an additional ground reversing the stand taken in the revised return of income and has claimed exemption under Article 13(4) of the Tax Treaty in respect of capital gain arising from sale of equity shares of Veritas Finance Pvt. Ltd. It is the case of the assessee that

M/S. Van-Oord India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1987/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Van Oord India Pvt. Ltd. 201, 2Nd Floor, Central Plaza, 166 Cst Road, Kalina, Raheja Towers, Opp. Sidbi, Mumbai-400 098 Pan: Aaach5430J ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 5(3) (2) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit Circle 5(3) (2) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Divesh Chawle, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Ld. DR

Section 114Section 250Section 28Section 92(1)

double taxation which has harmful effects on the international exchange of goods and services and cross-border movements of capital, technology and persons. Bilateral tax treaties address instances of double taxation by allocating taxing rights to the contracting States. Most existing bilateral tax treaties are concluded on the basis ... model, such as the OECD Model Tax Convention or the United Nations Model, which are direct descendants of the first Model of bilateral tax treaty drafted in 1928 by the League of Nations. As a result, while there can be substantial variations between one M/s Van Oord India