← 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

Ge Global Parts & Products Gmbh, Switzerland vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 2035/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Energy Parts Inc., Vs. Acit, C/O-Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, Circle 1(13)(1), Jaypee Wishtown, International Taxation, Sector 128, New Delhi Noida Pan :Aaccg2798N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Global Parts & Products Vs. Acit, Gmbh, Circle 1(3)(1), Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, International Taxation, Jaypee Wishtown, New Delhi Sector 128, Noida Pan :Aagcg3668K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

determined on year to year basis, as the existence of PE has to be decided based on the definition of PE in the relevant tax treaty. Merely because in one year, the assessee had a PE in India, that by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that the assessee must

Ge Energy Parts Inc., Usa vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 2034/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Energy Parts Inc., Vs. Acit, C/O-Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, Circle 1(13)(1), Jaypee Wishtown, International Taxation, Sector 128, New Delhi Noida Pan :Aaccg2798N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Global Parts & Products Vs. Acit, Gmbh, Circle 1(3)(1), Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, International Taxation, Jaypee Wishtown, New Delhi Sector 128, Noida Pan :Aagcg3668K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

determined on year to year basis, as the existence of PE has to be decided based on the definition of PE in the relevant tax treaty. Merely because in one year, the assessee had a PE in India, that by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that the assessee must

G E Energy Parts Inc., Usa vs. ACIT Circle-1(13)(1) Internationaltaxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 2033/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Energy Parts Inc., Vs. Acit, C/O-Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, Circle 1(13)(1), Jaypee Wishtown, International Taxation, Sector 128, New Delhi Noida Pan :Aaccg2798N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Global Parts & Products Vs. Acit, Gmbh, Circle 1(3)(1), Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, International Taxation, Jaypee Wishtown, New Delhi Sector 128, Noida Pan :Aagcg3668K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

determined on year to year basis, as the existence of PE has to be decided based on the definition of PE in the relevant tax treaty. Merely because in one year, the assessee had a PE in India, that by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that the assessee must

We Are Voices Entertainment Inc, Gurgaon vs. DCIT International Taxation 3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1474/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 234ASection 270A

Appellant’s service revenue does not constitute Fee for Technical/Included Services under the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as under the India-US tax treaty, erred in not holding that these service revenues cannot be taxed in absence of Permanent Establishment in India. 5 Without prejudice, that ... constitutes income arising in India and hence are chargeable to tax in India as other income in terms of Article 23 of India-US tax treaty. 6. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Id. AO has erred in charging surcharge and education cess on the applicable tax rate while

Relx Inc, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward International Taxation-3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1085/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Basanta, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

received from its Indian customers by treating it as Fees for Included Services (‘FIS’) Article 12 of the tax treaty between India and USA (‘India-USA DTAA’) without appreciating that even if services are considered to be rendered, the services do not make available technical knowledge to the recipient ... similar to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. In the assessee’s case, however the applicable treaty is Indo-US Tax Treaty wherein the benefit of ‘make available’ clause is there and at no point of time it can be alleged that any kind of know-how or knowledge

Spark44 Demand Creation Partners Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Cell, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the ground of appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1294/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhspark44 Demand Creation Vs. Assistant Commissioner Partners Private Limited Of Income Tax, 91 Springboard Business Centralized Processing Hub Pvt. Ltd., 175, Cell-Tds Kagalwala House, 2Nd Tds Cpc, Aayakar Floor, Vidyanagri Marg, Bhawan, Sector -3, Kalina, Santacruz (E) Vaishali, Ghaziabad, Mumbai – 400098 Up- 401010 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aawcs3113M Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Nimit Vora Respondent By : Ram Krishna Kedia Date Of Hearing 05.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 17.02.2023 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Cell Tds (Hereinafter Referred To As 'Ld. Ao') In Determining Tds Liability @ 20% On Amount Payable To Non-Resident Payee Towards Inter-Company Management Fees By Applying Provisions Of Section 206Aa R.W.S. 195 Of The Act In The Absence Of Pan Of Non-Resident Payee. 2. The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Appreciating The Following:

For Appellant: Nimit VoraFor Respondent: Ram Krishna Kedia
Section 115A(1)(b)Section 154Section 195Section 200ASection 206A

submitted that the definition of FTS only includes technical or consultancy services and managerial services are excluded from the ambit of FTS in the tax treaty. It is also submitted that in view of the provisions of India UK DTAA no tax should have been deducted at source, however

ACIT (It) 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2190/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Porus KakaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 195Section 2Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

clarified that no tax is required to be withheld on SWIFT charges since the amount is directly debited overseas. Even otherwise, in case where tax treaty provisions are applicable, such charges being in the nature of business income are not taxable in India in the absence of permanent establishment ... India of the relevant overseas bank as per Article 5 read with Article 7 of the relevant tax treaty. In view of the above, the Appellant submits that such charges are not liable to tax in India and, as such, there is no question of deduction of tax at source

Michael Graves Design Group Inc., Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs i

ITA 6007/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 & Asstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)

qualified as FTS. The relevant observations and findings of the Tribunal is reproduced below:- “9. A reading of article 12(4) of the tax treaty would make it clear that payment made to a resident of one of the contracting state can be regarded as FTS, if, in course ... assessee which can be applied by the assessee independently. Thus, it is very much clear, the conditions of article 12(4) of the tax treaty are not fulfilled. 12. Though, the Assessing Officer has generally observed that in course of providing services to the assessee, the non-resident entities have

Michael Graves Design Group Inc., Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs i

ITA 7683/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 & Asstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)

qualified as FTS. The relevant observations and findings of the Tribunal is reproduced below:- “9. A reading of article 12(4) of the tax treaty would make it clear that payment made to a resident of one of the contracting state can be regarded as FTS, if, in course ... assessee which can be applied by the assessee independently. Thus, it is very much clear, the conditions of article 12(4) of the tax treaty are not fulfilled. 12. Though, the Assessing Officer has generally observed that in course of providing services to the assessee, the non-resident entities have

Telstra Singapore Pte. Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 1655/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and under the Article 12(3) of the India Singapore Tax Treaty (Tax Treaty') in contravention of the following well-established facts and legal positions:” 3. The assessee is a company incorporated in Singapore ... services outside India as equipment process royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 12(3) of the India Singapore Tax Treaty (Tax Treaty"). 7. Further ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the finding of the AO. 8. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi

Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1((1), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 1654/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and under the Article 12(3) of the India Singapore Tax Treaty (Tax Treaty') in contravention of the following well-established facts and legal positions:” 3. The assessee is a company incorporated in Singapore ... services outside India as equipment process royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 12(3) of the India Singapore Tax Treaty (Tax Treaty"). 7. Further ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the finding of the AO. 8. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi

Ambibuzz Technologies LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1084/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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. 14. The learned DR reiterated the stand of the revenue

Planetcast International Pte.Ltd, Singapure vs. ACIT, Circle1(1)(1) International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1832/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Vizaya Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

shall be deemed to include an agent, nominee, or transferee of such person” 27. On a careful reading of Article 12(4) of the tax treaty, it becomes very much clear that Article 12(4)(a) and 12(4)(c) are not applicable to the present case. Insofar as Article ... that they are different projects. In this context, we may observe, the Assessing Officer while interpreting Article 5(3) and 5(4) of the tax treaty, has observed that all project sites in India have to be treated as one for determination of installation and supervisory PE. To buttress

M/S. Bombardier Transportation Gmbh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1390/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 144C(13)

arising for considered is whether BTIL constitutes a fixed place PE of the assessee in India. As per Article 5(1) of India – Germany Tax Treaty, a fixed place PE means a fixed place of business through which the business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried ... view that none of the conditions of fixed place PE as enshrined under Article 5(1) of India – Germany tax treaty stand satisfied to construe BTIL as the PE of the 17 | P a g e AY: 2010-11 assessee in India. Thus, in view of our aforesaid conclusion

Buro Happold Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1006/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleburo Happold Limited V. Acit (International Tax) C/O. Sudit K. Parekh & Co. Llp Circle – 1(3)(2) Urmi Estate – Tower A, 20Th Floor Room No. 1810, 18Th Floor 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013 Pan: Aabcb9239Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 90(2)

technical designs, drawings, plans, etc., under the consulting engineering services is to be treated as fees for technical services under the India-UK tax treaty. Once this issue is decided, the issue whether cost recharge is in the nature of fees for technical services will automatically get resolved since both ... engineering services. 15. There is no dispute between the parties that the assessee being a tax resident of UK is governed under India-UK tax treaty and if the treaty provisions are more beneficial, they will apply to the assessee in terms with section 90(2) of the Act. From

Accenture Solutions P Ltd (Asol), Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & the Dy CIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1255/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhaccenture Solutions Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (‘Asol’) Assistant Commissioner Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Of Income Tax/Income- Complex, Phirojshah Tax Officer, National Nagar, Vikhroli West, Facelless Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Centre, Delhi Mumbai – 400079 The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(1) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach3235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/ Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath Date Of Hearing 22.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ao (National Assessment Centre) Mumbai- 2, Dated 18.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 As Per The Direction Of The Drp Issued U/S 144C (5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo), Based On The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Drp Has: General Ground 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2888,33,73,016 Against A Total Income Of Rs.2179,39,30,620 As Reported By The Appellant In Its Revised Return Of Income & Determining A Demand Of Rs.2186,98,55,847 Payable By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/For Respondent: Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath
Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)

Dutch shareholders, is liable to tax as per the beneficial tax rate of 5% and 10% under Article 10(2) of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty and India- Netherlands tax treaty respectively, and thereby. rejecting the refund claim of Rs.294,84,70,521 made by the Appellant with respect

DCIT Circle-1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Aedas Pte. Ltd., Singapore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 716/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Aedas Pte. Ltd. International Taxation, 11-01, Keppel Towers, New Delhi. 10 Hoe Chiang Road, Singapore, Sg 089315, Foreign Singapore. Pan Aaica4878K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT- DR
Section 143(2)Section 144C(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

assessee independently. The relevant observations and findings of the Tribunal is reproduced below:- “9. A reading of article 12(4) of the tax treaty would make it clear that payment made to a resident of one of the contracting state can be regarded as FTS, if, in course of providing ... assessee which can be applied by the assessee independently. Thus, it is very much clear, the conditions of article 12(4) of the tax treaty are not fulfilled. 12. Though, the Assessing Officer has generally observed that in course of providing services to the assessee, the non-resident entities have

Spi Global Us Inc, Puducherry vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1662/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)

facts, i.e., the DRP had concluded that receipt of sub-contracting charges is not taxable as ‘Fees for Included Service’s’ under India-US Tax Treaty. 1.7. The lower authorities erred in concluding that the receipts from SPi India constitute FIS by misapplying the ruling of the Hon’ble Chennai ... issue on similar facts in favour of the assessee concluding that receipt of sub- contracting charges is not taxable as FIS under India US Tax Treaty. During AY 2015-16 SPi India had sub-contracted similar e-publishing work to its AE, LW US and received consideration from SPi India

DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi vs. Spicejet Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2011-12 is partly

ITA 883/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5181/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम Spice Jet Limited, Addl. Cit 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iv, Vs. Range-9, Gurgaon, Haryana. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccr1459F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5153/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम Acit Spice Jet Ltd., Circle-24(1), Vs. 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iv, Room No.163, Gurgaon, Haryana. C.R. Building, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccr1459F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.879/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Dcit Spice Jet Ltd., Central Circle-01, Vs. 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iv, Room No.334, E-2, Gurgaon, Haryana. Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccr1459F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115J

April, 2007. In the aftermath of withdrawal of exemption the liability of the lessor is to be governed by the provisions of bilateral tax treaties. Learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that as per provisions of section 90 of the Act, provisions of DTAA shall apply to the extent ... lower authorities in the present case. It is his submission that the definition of royalty under the Income-tax Act and Tax Treaty includes a consideration for use and right to use any commercial, scientific and industrial equipment and aircraft do arguably fall within this category equipment and therefore

DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi vs. Spicejet Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2011-12 is partly

ITA 882/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5181/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम Spice Jet Limited, Addl. Cit 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iv, Vs. Range-9, Gurgaon, Haryana. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccr1459F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5153/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम Acit Spice Jet Ltd., Circle-24(1), Vs. 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iv, Room No.163, Gurgaon, Haryana. C.R. Building, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccr1459F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.879/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Dcit Spice Jet Ltd., Central Circle-01, Vs. 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iv, Room No.334, E-2, Gurgaon, Haryana. Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccr1459F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115J

April, 2007. In the aftermath of withdrawal of exemption the liability of the lessor is to be governed by the provisions of bilateral tax treaties. Learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that as per provisions of section 90 of the Act, provisions of DTAA shall apply to the extent ... lower authorities in the present case. It is his submission that the definition of royalty under the Income-tax Act and Tax Treaty includes a consideration for use and right to use any commercial, scientific and industrial equipment and aircraft do arguably fall within this category equipment and therefore