← All Phrases

“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Group M Media (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are stand dismissed

ITA 3087/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhco No. 137/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2011-12) Group M Media (India) Vs. Dcit-12(2)(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 145, 1 St Floor, 8Th Floor, Commerz Aayakar Bhavan, International Business M.K. Road, Park, Oberoi Garden Mumbai-400020 City, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccm7365H Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-12(2)(2) Vs. Group M Media (India) Room No. 145, 1 St Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, 8Th Floor, Commerz M.K. Road, International Business Mumbai-400020 Park, Oberoi Garden City, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccm7365H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Shri. Ganesh Rakh Date Of Hearing 27.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10 .2023

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh Rakh
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

hands of shareholders for the assessees covered under India-Hungary DTAA. Since there is a MFN clause in the protocol of India-Netherlands tax treaty, the Appellant wishes to seek benefit of India-Hungary tax treaty for the scope.  Further, for the purpose of beneficial rate of 5%, the Appellant ... dividend to its Dutch shareholder Berkely Square holding BV. The assessee submitted that since there is MFN clause in the protocol of India Netherlands tax treaty therefore beneficial rate of 5% be considered in the case of the assessee as per Article 10(2) of India- Slovenia Treaty

Veg 'N' Table, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- Int. Tax 3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2251/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 . Veg ‘N’ Table, Vs. Dcit, 801, Tower-A 1, Circle- International Tax - Ansal Corporate Park, 3(1)(1), Sector-142, Delhi Noida Pan :Aagcv2131A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

examine high refund to TDS ratio. In course of assessment proceeding, while examining assessee’s claim of exemption under Article 13(4) of the tax treaty, the Assessing Officer observed that 75% of assessee’s shares are held by a company in United Kingdod (UK) and the remaining 25% shares

Abhinav Jhalani, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Int. Tax.), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/JPR/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2023AY 2020-2021

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

For Appellant: Ms. Sweta Saboo, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CITa
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

Alstom (Thailand) Ltd (Formerly Known As Bombardier Transportation Signal (Thailand) Limited), Thailand vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1930/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Alstom (Thailand) Ltd. (Formerly Versus Acit, Circle 1(1)(2), Known As Bombardier International Taxation, Transportation Signal (Thailand) Delhi. Limited Thailand. No. 724, Phase 3, Gidc, Vadodara, Gujrat. Pan: Aadcb5702A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

allegation of the revenue authorities that the assessee has a supervisory permanent establishment (PE) under the provisions of Article 5 of India-Thailand Tax Treaty. In ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged taxability of receipts from engineering services as royalty. 3. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee, earlier known ... subsidiary of Bombardier Transportation Holdings (Thailand) Ltd. The assessee is a tax resident of Thailand as contemplated under Article 4 of the India-Thailand Tax treaty. The assessee had entered into an agreement namely "CS03" with Delhi 7 Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) wherein BT-Thailand along with the other member

Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.6723/Del/2017 is allowed, whereas,

ITA 6725/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

Section 9(1)(vii)

factual position emerging on record, in our considered opinion, the receipts would not qualify as FTS under Article 12(4)(b) of the tax treaty. Therefore, we conclude that the additions made by the Assessing Officer treating the receipts as FTS are unsustainable. Grounds raised on the issue are allowed ... such income was inadvertently offered to tax in the return of income, though, it was not taxable under Article 12(4)(b) of the tax treaty. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that it was made through revised return of income. Though, assessee

Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.6723/Del/2017 is allowed, whereas,

ITA 6724/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

Section 9(1)(vii)

factual position emerging on record, in our considered opinion, the receipts would not qualify as FTS under Article 12(4)(b) of the tax treaty. Therefore, we conclude that the additions made by the Assessing Officer treating the receipts as FTS are unsustainable. Grounds raised on the issue are allowed ... such income was inadvertently offered to tax in the return of income, though, it was not taxable under Article 12(4)(b) of the tax treaty. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that it was made through revised return of income. Though, assessee

Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.6723/Del/2017 is allowed, whereas,

ITA 6723/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

Section 9(1)(vii)

factual position emerging on record, in our considered opinion, the receipts would not qualify as FTS under Article 12(4)(b) of the tax treaty. Therefore, we conclude that the additions made by the Assessing Officer treating the receipts as FTS are unsustainable. Grounds raised on the issue are allowed ... such income was inadvertently offered to tax in the return of income, though, it was not taxable under Article 12(4)(b) of the tax treaty. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that it was made through revised return of income. Though, assessee

Taj Tv Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (It) 4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 894/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 250

purposes are concerned, it is sufficient to take note of the fact that the provisions of Article 3(2) of Indo Singaporean tax treaty are differently worded vis-à-vis the old Indo German tax treaty that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court were dealing with in Siemens Aktiongesellschaft's case ... judicial sanction for the theory of ambulatory interpretation, for the purpose of article 3(2), does not, therefore, necessarily extend to Indo Singaporean tax treaty that we are concerned with.‖ 24. The provisions of Article 3(2) of India US DTAA are similar to India Singapore DTAA, which were considered

DCIT (It) 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Taj Tv Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1351/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 250

purposes are concerned, it is sufficient to take note of the fact that the provisions of Article 3(2) of Indo Singaporean tax treaty are differently worded vis-à-vis the old Indo German tax treaty that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court were dealing with in Siemens Aktiongesellschaft's case ... judicial sanction for the theory of ambulatory interpretation, for the purpose of article 3(2), does not, therefore, necessarily extend to Indo Singaporean tax treaty that we are concerned with.‖ 24. The provisions of Article 3(2) of India US DTAA are similar to India Singapore DTAA, which were considered

Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Mumbai vs. ACIT Range 2(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are partly allowed

ITA 731/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2019-22 With Assessment Year: 2020-21. Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Vs. Acit, Mumbai, Circle- Intl. Tax. 2(1)(1), 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 New Delhi Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra Pan :Aacci9974L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

receipts are in the nature of royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as under Article 12 of India – Netherlands tax treaty, as, they are towards use or right to use of equipment/processes etc. In similar lines, he framed the draft assessment order by bringing ... existed at the time the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement was entered into. This is the context in which the ambulatory approach to tax treaty interpretation was not rejected. The situation before this Court however is materially different as there is in fact a definition of the word royalty under Article

Accion Africa-Asia Investment Company, Noida vs. ACIT International Taxation Circle 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 1815/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Delhi26 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 . Accion Africa-Asia Vs. Acit, Investment Company, International Taxation, C/O- Ankul Goyal, Advocate Circle-1(1)(1), Azb & Partners, A-8, Sector-4, New Delhi Noida Pan :Aajca1104H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

held that the assessee has been incorporated in Mauritius for the sole purpose of availing exemption under Article 13(4) of the India – Mauritius tax treaty. He observed, since, the assessee has been set up through a scheme of arrangement to avoid taxes adopting colourable device, the scheme ... assessee from sale of shares of two Indian companies is taxable in India or not, in view of Article 13(4) of India – Mauritius Tax Treaty. 11. Undisputed facts are, the assessee is a tax resident of Mauritius and is an investment holding company. It has been granted a Category

Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 2(1) (1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1883/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2019-22 With Assessment Year: 2020-21. Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Vs. Acit, Mumbai, Circle- Intl. Tax. 2(1)(1), 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 New Delhi Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra Pan :Aacci9974L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

receipts are in the nature of royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as under Article 12 of India – Netherlands tax treaty, as, they are towards use or right to use of equipment/processes etc. In similar lines, he framed the draft assessment order by bringing ... existed at the time the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement was entered into. This is the context in which the ambulatory approach to tax treaty interpretation was not rejected. The situation before this Court however is materially different as there is in fact a definition of the word royalty under Article

Sudarshan Chitlangia, Jaipur vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 507/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Oct 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abdulkadir Jawadwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CITa
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 224ASection 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 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

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Campus Eai India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 355/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

settlement of claims, marketing and risk analysis, fall short of the requirements laid down in the definition of fees for technical services in Tax Treaty between India and Singapore. It will be too much to say that by providing such services (assuming they are technical or consultancy services), the applicant ... think that the payment can be brought within the scope of the definition of royalty in Article 12.3 of the India- Singapore Tax Treaty. There is no transfer of any copyright contained in the computer software provided by AXA ARC Applying the principle laid down in Dassault Systems

DCIT Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Joginder Pal Gupta, Sonipat

ITA 1283/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Misra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 9(1)(vii)

Income-Tax Act,1961. Further, he held that the receipts even would qualify as FTS under Article 13 of the Tax Treaty as it includes receipts from provision of managerial, technical or consultancy services. He observed that Article 13 of India-Hong Kong Treaty does not require satisfaction of make ... Indian entity would qualify as FTS both under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as under India-Hong Kong Tax Treaty. Proceeding further, he submitted, merely because in the past assessment year the Assessing Officer has not taxed identical receipts as FTS, would not debar the Assessing

ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(1)(1), New Delhi vs. Avnet Technologies Hong Kong Ltd, Hong Kong

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1283/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Misra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 9(1)(vii)

Income-Tax Act,1961. Further, he held that the receipts even would qualify as FTS under Article 13 of the Tax Treaty as it includes receipts from provision of managerial, technical or consultancy services. He observed that Article 13 of India-Hong Kong Treaty does not require satisfaction of make ... Indian entity would qualify as FTS both under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as under India-Hong Kong Tax Treaty. Proceeding further, he submitted, merely because in the past assessment year the Assessing Officer has not taxed identical receipts as FTS, would not debar the Assessing

Legrand Nederland B.V., Mumbai vs. Asstt. Comm. of Income Tax 3(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2487/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelegrand Nederland B.V. V. Acit (Intl. Taxation) – 3(1)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building 61/62, 6Th Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai Kalpatru Square, Kondivita Road Off. Andheri Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aaccl1156B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Prayas Jain Department Represented By : Shri Amit Kumar Soni

Section 10(34)Section 112(1)(c)Section 115Section 144C(5)Section 2(22)(d)Section 244ASection 270A

exempt under section 10(34) of the Act, the AO/ DRP has erred in considering tax rate of 10% as per India-Netherlands tax treaty (hereinafter referred as "the Tax Treaty") instead of the tax rate of 5% on dividend as per the Most Favoured Nation or MFN Clause ... Tax Treaty (read with protocol to the Tax Treaty). 5. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/ DRP has erred in not treating capital gains arising pursuant to capital reduction by Novateur as exempt from tax in view of Article

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes subject to the directions contained in para 11, 18 and 19 above

ITA 913/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

opposed to applying the beneficial tax rate of 10% provided under Article 11 of the India- Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA" or "Tax treaty"). 4. That on the facts and in circumstances in law, the Ld. AO erred in not allowing credit of taxes deducted at source ("TDS") amounting ... exceed 10% of the gross amount of the interest. 16. It is a well settled position of the law that the provision of the tax treaty shall take precedence over the Act to the extent they are more beneficial to the tax payer. By virtue of the provisions of section

Bain & Company, Inc., Usa vs. DCIT, Int.Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1620/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vii)

No.1620 /Del/2022 AY: 2019-20 also in the nature of FIS/FTS, both under Article 12(4)(b) of the tax treaty as well as under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. He further observed that not only the services rendered are in the nature of consultancy services, but while ... assessee. Thus, in the aforesaid premises, the Assessing Officer brought both the receipts to tax under Article 12(4)(b) of the tax treaty. Contesting the aforesaid additions, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP. However, following their directions in assessment year 2018-19 in respect of similar dispute, learned

M/S. Linklaters, Mumbai vs. The DDIT (It) 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3280/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelinklaters V. Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent) Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) V. Linklaters Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 44C

learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the appellant has a permanent establishment in India under Article 5(2)(k) of the Tax Treaty between India and the U.K 2. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have specifically directed the Assessing Officer to assess 5 ITA NO. 3039/MUM/2008 ... learned Deputy Director of Income tax erred in holding that the appellant was liable to tax in India under Article 15 of the Tax Treaty between India and U.K. The Deputy Director of Income tax ought to have appreciated that Article 15 was applicable only to individuals