← 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

The ADIT(It)-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/.S Nagase & Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 343/MUM/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharashi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

profits attributable to the PE, if any, should be computed in accordance with Article 7(1) and 7(2) of the India- Japan tax treaty, by adopting the average rate of commission paid by the Appellant to its independent agents. 4. The learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding ... Liaison office constitutes its Permanent Establishment in India under Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Japan ('India- Japan tax treaty"). 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the sales made by the Appellant through independent agents in India are taxable in India

M/S. Nagase & Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT(A) Xxxiii, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/MUM/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharashi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

profits attributable to the PE, if any, should be computed in accordance with Article 7(1) and 7(2) of the India- Japan tax treaty, by adopting the average rate of commission paid by the Appellant to its independent agents. 4. The learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding ... Liaison office constitutes its Permanent Establishment in India under Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Japan ('India- Japan tax treaty"). 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the sales made by the Appellant through independent agents in India are taxable in India

Spencer Stuart International B.V., Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1148/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

Income-tax Act, 1961 and under Articles 12(5)(a) and / or 12(5)(b) of the India-Netherlands tax treaty. (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18) Spencer Stuart International B.V. 4. In spite of the learned DRP accepting that the material facts and circumstances have not undergone any change when ... search fees are not taxable in India under Article 12(4), 12(5)(a) as well as 12(5)(b) of the India-Netherlands tax treaty. 5. The learned DRP/Assessing Officer ought to have followed the order of the Hon'ble ITAT passed in case of Spencer Stuart (India) Private

Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 680/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth Kini, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 90

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. On realising the same ... 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

Cma Cgm Sa, Mumbai vs. ACIT, (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5998/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: S/Shri M.P. Lohia and Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: S/Shri Miland Chavan and C.T. Mathews
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Agencies India Private Limited ('CCAl')] is not chargeable to tax in India by virtue of the beneficial provisions of Article 9 of India-France tax treaty. 18. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, while the Appellant has inadvertently offered the said income to tax ... CCAl to the Appellant is not chargeable to tax in India as per the Article 13 as well as Article 9 of India-France tax treaty and hence, CCAl was not liable to withhold tax on the same in India. 3 20. Without prejudice to the above, the Appellant prays

M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/BANG/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.989/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Electronic City, Hosur Road, Tax, Bengaluru – 560 100. International Taxation, Pan : Aaccp 4478 N Circle 1(1), Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.02.2017 Of Cit(A) - 12, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Bpo Services. The Assessee Made Payment Of 2100 Us$ To A Non- Resident Viz., Stakeholder Centered Coaching (International Ltd.,)

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 248Section 5Section 9(1)(vii)

High Court while rendering its decision that the payment could not be taxed as FTS has referred to OECD Report on e- commerce titled Tax Treaty Charaterization Issues arising from e- commerce, wherein the nature of FTS in the context of has been discussed. It was clarified by the learned ... imparted by the non-resident would not or cannot be used. It is in this context that the OECD Report on e-commerce titled Tax Treaty Charaterization Issues arising from e-commerce, wherein the nature of FTS in the context of has been discussed, becomes relevant. 7. The OECD commentary

Mfe Formwork Technology Sdn Bhd, Mumbai vs. The CIT (Intl Tax), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 890/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 263

dispute on the point that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of the India Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [Indo-Malaysian tax treaty, in short]. The assessee group has a wholly owned subsidiary in India, by the name of MFE Formwork Technology India Pvt Ltd (MFE-India, in short

Mergermarket Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT(It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicate above

ITA 6602/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 201

royalty under the Income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') as well as the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and UK (Tax Treaty'). 1.3 The Appellant prays that the subscription fees received by the Appellant be held as not in the nature of Royalties under the Act as well ... Article 13(3) of the Tax Treaty. 3. When the matter came up for hearing before us, learned representative fairly agree that the issue in appeal is squarely covered by a co-ordinate bench decision in the case of IMS AG vs DCIT (ITA No. 6445/Mum/2016 order dated 13th July

DCIT (It) 3(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marriott International Design & Construction Services Inc., Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

ITA 455/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143Section 195Section 9

received by the assessee is taxable in the hands of the assessee as fees of included services under article 12 of the US Tax Treaty and also as fees for technical services u/s. 9 (1) (vii) of the Income Tax Act. For the reasons set out in short while ... source liability u/s 195 of the Act, it was held that these amounts are not taxable under the provisions of the Indo-US tax treaty, while holding so the co-ordinate bench inter alia observed as follows:- CO No. 72/Mum/2022 Assessment year: 2017-18 Page 3 of 7 30.We have

Bank of America N.A, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed

ITA 3343/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bank Of America National Commissioner Of Income Tax Association, (International Taxation), Range-1, Ground Floor, A Wing, One Vs. 3Rd Floor, Room No. 9, Mittal Court Bkc, G Block, Bandra Kurla ‘B’ Wing, Nariman Point, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacb 1537 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Vasanti Patel Revenue By : Mr. Sunil K. Jha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil K. Jha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 9(1)(v)

domestic law. Even Even otherwise, there is no express provision contained otherwise, there is no express provision contained in the relevant tax treaty which is contrary to the domestic in the relevant tax treaty which is contrary to the domestic in the relevant tax treaty which is contrary ... Indian Branch is taxable in India as per Article 14(6) of the India India as per Article 14(6) of the India–USA Tax Treaty. According to USA Tax Treaty. According to learned CIT, the provisions of Tax Treaty will prevail over the learned CIT, the provisions of Tax

Santosh Kumar Yekula, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 561/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri Santosh Kumar Yekula, Flat No. 591, Pace Prana The Assistant Director Apartments, Of Income Tax, 109 Padikuppam Road, Cpc, Anna Nagar West Extn, Bengaluru. Vs. Chennai – 600 040. Pan: Abnpy7738B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Risha P, Ca : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 17-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2022

For Appellant: Ms. Risha P, CA
Section 143(1)

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

Tanmoy Ghosh, Maharashtra vs. Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 550/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: None
Section 139(1)

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

Tanmoy Ghosh, Maharashtra vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 549/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: None
Section 139(1)

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

M/S Infineon Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 3355/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3355/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 9Th Floor, Prestige Income Tax, Thirulakshmi, Circle – 3(1)(1), No. 11, Mg Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcs6967N Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 26/10/2018 By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “A. Transfer Pricing The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao'), Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Learned Tpo') & The Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'Ble Drp') Grossly Erred In Adjusting The Transfer Price By Inr 9,56,93,721/- With Respect To The International

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan
Section 92C

failed to appreciate that the expenses cross-charged by Infineon Germany are not in the nature of FTS under the Act and the applicable tax treaty. 27. Disallowance of depreciation on software expenses: i. The Learned AO and the HOn'ble DRP have erred in disallowing

Immarsat Global Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose and ground raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 626/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleinmarsat Global Limited V. Dcit (It) – 2(2)(1) Ernst & Young Llp Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor 14Th Floor, The Ruby Air India Building, Nariman Point 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400021 Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aaaci6098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarati Sathe Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Aarati SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh
Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

tax resident of UK 3 Inmarsat Global Limited for the purpose of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and UK ('India-UK Tax Treaty'). 1. In connection with the above, it is submitted that Inmarsat is engaged in the business of providing telecommunication services. Inmarsat has entered into ... VSNL)] to be 'Royalty as defined under Article 13(3)(a) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and United Kingdom ('India UK Tax Treaty'); Ground number 3 erred in not following the decision of the jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal in the Appellant's own case for previous Assessment Years

Damco International Bv, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7447/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Poras Kaka, Sr.Advocate with Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: S/ Shri B.K.Bagchi & Milind Chavan
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

taxable as “Royalty” and “Fee for Technical Services” under the provisions of the Act as well as under Indo-Netherland Tax Treaty. 7. We find that in the case of Damco International AS vs. DCIT in ITA No.933 & 6465/Mum/2017 for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, decided on 20/07/2020

Tekla India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 211/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 40

Benefit under DTAA 13. erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant is eligible to claim benefit under the provisions of India-Finland Tax Treaty and that the said payments do not qualify as "royalty" under Article 13 of the India-Finland Tax Treaty. Without prejudice to the above ... purchase of licenses and upgrades and services would not qualify as Royalty as per the provisions of the Act as well as India Finland tax treaty. In reply, assessee submitted that the payments made to Tekla Finland are not in the nature of royalty and hence not subjected to tax

DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse Ag, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 14/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(vii)

rise to income that is taxable in India as per the domestic law. Even otherwise, there is no express provision contained in the relevant tax treaty which is contrary to the domestic law in India on this issue. This position applicable in the case of interest paid by Indian branch ... India Switzerland treaty. The ld. DR argued that interest is specifically allowed as a deduction as per the protocol of India Japan tax treaty whereas the same is not the case with India Switzerland tax treaty. Thus, he argued that in assessee’s case, either the interest paid by CSMB

Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1815/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Somendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR

explained by the assessee that under . It was explained by the assessee that under Article 7 of the Indo German tax treaty, only so much of the business 7 of the Indo German tax treaty, only so much of the business 7 of the Indo German tax treaty, only ... same assessment year but only DZ Bank, India Representative Bank, India Representative ITA Nos. 1812 to 1815/M/2018 under a different provision in the same tax treaty. We cannot, and under a different provision in the same tax treaty. We cannot, and under a different provision in the same tax treaty

Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1814/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Somendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR

explained by the assessee that under . It was explained by the assessee that under Article 7 of the Indo German tax treaty, only so much of the business 7 of the Indo German tax treaty, only so much of the business 7 of the Indo German tax treaty, only ... same assessment year but only DZ Bank, India Representative Bank, India Representative ITA Nos. 1812 to 1815/M/2018 under a different provision in the same tax treaty. We cannot, and under a different provision in the same tax treaty. We cannot, and under a different provision in the same tax treaty