← 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

Owens-Corning(Singapore)Pte.Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Internatioal Taxation) Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6529/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Megha Shah, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR
Section 234Section 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered between India and Singapore (India-Singapore Tax Treaty") 2. The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law prevailing on the subject, the fabrication charges received ... fees for technical services either under the Income-tax Act, 1961 or under the provisions of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty. The stand taken by the Assessing Officer / Dispute Resolution Panel in this regard is erroneous, misconceived and not in accordance with the law. 3. The Appellant submits that

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5193/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

India-Singapore DTAA. In M/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. (supra) for AY 2016-17, the Tribunal observes that though the India-Singapore Tax Treaty is amended by Notification No. SO 935(E) dated 23.03.2017, however, the definition of 'royalty' therein has not been tinkered with and remains as such ... services is materially similar". All these services were held to be outside the scope of fees for technical services taxable under the Indo-US tax treaty. In the case of Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Jt. DIT [2007] 14 SOT 307 (Mum.), another coordinate bench of this Tribunal, inter alia

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7248/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

India-Singapore DTAA. In M/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. (supra) for AY 2016-17, the Tribunal observes that though the India-Singapore Tax Treaty is amended by Notification No. SO 935(E) dated 23.03.2017, however, the definition of 'royalty' therein has not been tinkered with and remains as such ... services is materially similar". All these services were held to be outside the scope of fees for technical services taxable under the Indo-US tax treaty. In the case of Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Jt. DIT [2007] 14 SOT 307 (Mum.), another coordinate bench of this Tribunal, inter alia

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7247/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

India-Singapore DTAA. In M/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. (supra) for AY 2016-17, the Tribunal observes that though the India-Singapore Tax Treaty is amended by Notification No. SO 935(E) dated 23.03.2017, however, the definition of 'royalty' therein has not been tinkered with and remains as such ... services is materially similar". All these services were held to be outside the scope of fees for technical services taxable under the Indo-US tax treaty. In the case of Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Jt. DIT [2007] 14 SOT 307 (Mum.), another coordinate bench of this Tribunal, inter alia

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 508/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

India-Singapore DTAA. In M/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. (supra) for AY 2016-17, the Tribunal observes that though the India-Singapore Tax Treaty is amended by Notification No. SO 935(E) dated 23.03.2017, however, the definition of 'royalty' therein has not been tinkered with and remains as such ... services is materially similar". All these services were held to be outside the scope of fees for technical services taxable under the Indo-US tax treaty. In the case of Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Jt. DIT [2007] 14 SOT 307 (Mum.), another coordinate bench of this Tribunal, inter alia

General Electric Company, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

ITA 82/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M Balaganeshm/S. General Electric Company, C/O Kpmg, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 Pan Aaacg5399M …Appellant. Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-3(1), Room No.136, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N M Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ….Respondent. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3(1), Mumbai-400 038 ….Appellant. Vs. M/S. General Electric Company, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. ….Respondent. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Shri Abhishek Tilak & Shri Ameya Pany. Revenue By : Ms. Surabi Sharma, Cit D.R. Shri Sunil Umap, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabi Sharma, CIT
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 9

Article 5 of the Tax Treat and consequently, was not liable to tax in India in respect of the offshore supplies under the Tax Treaty. The assessment proceedings was completed vide order dated 29 January 2004 under section 143(3) of the Act wherein the returned income was accepted without ... business through other fixed place of business in the form of other offices of the GE group in India. provisions of respective tax treaties. The office as well as the premises used as a sales outlet or for receiving or soliciting orders also constitutes the PE as provided in paragraph

DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. General Electric Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

ITA 432/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M Balaganeshm/S. General Electric Company, C/O Kpmg, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 Pan Aaacg5399M …Appellant. Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-3(1), Room No.136, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N M Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ….Respondent. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3(1), Mumbai-400 038 ….Appellant. Vs. M/S. General Electric Company, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. ….Respondent. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Shri Abhishek Tilak & Shri Ameya Pany. Revenue By : Ms. Surabi Sharma, Cit D.R. Shri Sunil Umap, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabi Sharma, CIT
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 9

Article 5 of the Tax Treat and consequently, was not liable to tax in India in respect of the offshore supplies under the Tax Treaty. The assessment proceedings was completed vide order dated 29 January 2004 under section 143(3) of the Act wherein the returned income was accepted without ... business through other fixed place of business in the form of other offices of the GE group in India. provisions of respective tax treaties. The office as well as the premises used as a sales outlet or for receiving or soliciting orders also constitutes the PE as provided in paragraph

M/S. Buro Happold Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT (Int Tax) -1(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 1690/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234B

make available any technical knowledge or skill etc and accordingly the services would not qualify as fees for technical services under the India-UK Tax Treaty (DTAA in short) and the same should be characterized as Business Income falling under Article 7 of the DTAA. Such business income shall ... 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

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DDIT It-3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 1510/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2003-2004
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the India Singapore Tax Treaty relief to the appellant in respect of receipts from Set Setellite Singapore Pte. Ltd. (SET). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in holding that the benefit of India Singapore Tax Treaty is available to the appellant in respect of revenues earned from LG and Hero Honda. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (Int. Taxation) - 3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3135/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the India Singapore Tax Treaty relief to the appellant in respect of receipts from Set Setellite Singapore Pte. Ltd. (SET). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in holding that the benefit of India Singapore Tax Treaty is available to the appellant in respect of revenues earned from LG and Hero Honda. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that

ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3130/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the India Singapore Tax Treaty relief to the appellant in respect of receipts from Set Setellite Singapore Pte. Ltd. (SET). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in holding that the benefit of India Singapore Tax Treaty is available to the appellant in respect of revenues earned from LG and Hero Honda. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that

Ubs Ag, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1)

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 842/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 92C

claimed UBS AG ITA no.842/Mum./2016 and ITA no. 1347/Mum/.2016 the same to be exempt under Article 13(6) of the India Switzerland Tax Treaty. During the course of assessment proceedings, the said gain was treated as business income and held to be taxable in India as the same ... taxability of such income, which has been held to be non- taxable in India under Article 13(6) of the India-Switzerland Tax Treaty by the Tribunal in the aforestated precedents. The Tribunal, in Assessment Year 2009-10 (supra) held that banking branch of the assessee in India would

DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ubs Ag, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1347/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 92C

claimed UBS AG ITA no.842/Mum./2016 and ITA no. 1347/Mum/.2016 the same to be exempt under Article 13(6) of the India Switzerland Tax Treaty. During the course of assessment proceedings, the said gain was treated as business income and held to be taxable in India as the same ... taxability of such income, which has been held to be non- taxable in India under Article 13(6) of the India-Switzerland Tax Treaty by the Tribunal in the aforestated precedents. The Tribunal, in Assessment Year 2009-10 (supra) held that banking branch of the assessee in India would

Subramanian Sreeram, Bangalore vs. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, National Faceless Appeal Centre

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1027/BANG/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Navneet N. Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 90

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 ... 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

Michael Page International Pte Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Tax) -3(2)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 751/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 751/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Michael Page International Pte Limited, C/O.Michael Page International Recruitment Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, 2North Avenue, Maker Maxity, Bandra Kurla Compelx, Mumbai -400 051 Pan:Aahcm-6965-A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle – 3(2)(2) Mumbai, Room No.X. 16Th Floor, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point,Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Pratik Shah & Ms.Riddhi Maru ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23/02/2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Assessment Order By Raising Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Shah & Ms.Riddhi MaruFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

that condition is not satisfied on the facts of the present case. We, therefore, hold that that „make available‟ clause in the Indo-Singapore tax treaty cannot be invoked on the facts of the present case- as no case is even made out by the revenue that as a result

Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited (in Liquidation), Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) (It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 509/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.509/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2015-16) Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited. (In Liquidation) C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028 Pan: Aaccb-4438-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-1(2)(1),Mumbai, 18Th Floor, Room No.1811, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31/01/2022 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2 2. Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That She Is Not Pressing Ground No.1 Of Appeal Challenging Reassessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Ms.Jasmin AmalsadvalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 147

Assessing Officer however, accepted alternate claim of the assessee to the extent that the assessee will get the benefit of India Mauritius tax treaty, however, the benefit of tax treaty shall be eligible to the asssessee as per clause 2(b) of Article -10 and hence, the dividend is eligible ... Tribunal on this issue are as under: 11. The plea of the assessee is indeed well taken. As article 1 of the Indo Mauritius tax treaty provides, “(t)his Convention shall apply to persons who are residents of one or both of the Contracting States”. Article 4(1) of Indo

M/S Owens Coming Inc, Mumbai vs. The DCIT(Intl Tax) Circle 3(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 459/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Owens-Corning Inc. C/O.Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd. 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan:Aaaco-3242-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle – 3(2)(2) Mumbai, Room No.X. 16Th Floor, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bhalla & Ms. Megha Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23/02/2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Solitary Issue By Way Of Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla & Ms. Megha ShahFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)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'). 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 nor 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.” 3. Shri Sandeep Bhalla appearing on behalf of the assessee submits at the outset that

Rohan Hattangadi, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1896/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Rohan Hattangadi Cit(A), 32,33/A, Peace Haven Society, Faceless Appeal Centre, Vs. Bandra, Mumbai-400 050 Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh
Section 139(5)Section 244ASection 250Section 90

Rohan Hattangadi vs. CIT(A) doubly taxed income ought to be allowed as relief in terms of Article 23(2) of India-Sri Lanka Tax Treaty. 2.3 The learned NFAC has erred in not considering the Form 67 and other document, submitted before filing revised return, for claiming foreign tax ... claiming foreign tax relief (‘FTC’ for short), amounting to Rs.26,718/- as per the terms of Article 23(2) of India Sri Lanka tax treaty, for which FTC is to be allowed as per the provisions of section 90 of the Act read with Rule 128 of the Rules

Abbott India Ltd (As Successor to Solvay Pharma India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1705/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Abott India Limited Addl. Cit-Range 7(2) Unit 3-4, Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Vs. Marg, Mumbai-400 071. Mumbai-400 020 Pan No. Aaacu 9269 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2022

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14A

grant refund in respect of the dividend distribution tax paid under section 115-0 in excess of the rates prescribed under the relevant tax treaties. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter omit or substitute any or all of the above grounds ofappeal, at any time before ... respect of dividend paid to non resident shareholders to the extent such tax paid exceed the tax rate prescribed under the relevant tax treaty The Ld. AR for the assessee in support of his argument contended that on this issue Special Bench has already been constituted by theTribunal in "Total

Tom Thomas, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (CPC), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed” (Emphasis Supplied)

ITA 20/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Bhavin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chintamani V. Divgankar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 90Section 90(2)

Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of INR 430,399/- as per section 90(2) of the Act read with Article 25 of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty ('the Tax Treaty'). Along with the revised return the Appellant also filed Form 67 support his claim ... provide for disallowance of FTC where Form 67 is not filed within the specified time limit, the provisions contained in Article 25 of the Tax Treaty would override the same. Article 25 of the Tax Treaty do not provide for furnishing of Form 67 on or before a specified date