THE DCIT ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ),, AHMEDABAD vs. BLACK PEARL SERVICES LIMITED, G.S.E.C. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2813-2815/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 To 2013-14 The D.C.I.T, Black Pearl Services Limited, (International Taxation), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Gujarat Chamber Of Ahmedabad Commerce Building, ‘’Sangram.’’ Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaecb1176H

permanent establishment is situated or elsewhere, in accordance with the provisions of and subject to the limitations of the tax laws of that State.]” 11.2 Similarly the relevant provisions as contained under section 9 of the Act stands as under: “The following incomes shall be deemed 65 to accrue or arise in India : [Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts

THE DCIT ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ),, AHMEDABAD vs. BLACK PEARL SERVICES LIMITED, G.S.E.C. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2813-2815/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 To 2013-14 The D.C.I.T, Black Pearl Services Limited, (International Taxation), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Gujarat Chamber Of Ahmedabad Commerce Building, ‘’Sangram.’’ Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaecb1176H

permanent establishment is situated or elsewhere, in accordance with the provisions of and subject to the limitations of the tax laws of that State.]” 11.2 Similarly the relevant provisions as contained under section 9 of the Act stands as under: “The following incomes shall be deemed 65 to accrue or arise in India : [Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts

THE DCIT ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ),, AHMEDABAD vs. BLACK PEARL SERVICES LIMITED, G.S.E.C. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2813-2815/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 To 2013-14 The D.C.I.T, Black Pearl Services Limited, (International Taxation), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Gujarat Chamber Of Ahmedabad Commerce Building, ‘’Sangram.’’ Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaecb1176H

permanent establishment is situated or elsewhere, in accordance with the provisions of and subject to the limitations of the tax laws of that State.]” 11.2 Similarly the relevant provisions as contained under section 9 of the Act stands as under: “The following incomes shall be deemed 65 to accrue or arise in India : [Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Us.

permanent establishment in India of such commission agents. In view of the above, in I.T.A No. 1550/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 11 ACIT vs. M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. respect of these agents, no disallowance

THE DY.CIT (INT.-TAXA.)-1, , AHMEDABAD vs. ZYDUS LIFSCIENCE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

permanent establishment to the extent of income attributable to the PE. In its case none of the party have PE in India neither the assessee has PE in Thailand. 8. The assessee further submitted that the services were rendered by the foreign parties outside India in connection with the business carried on outside India (Thailand), hence the same is covered

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

Permanent services rendered by Establishment in India, them.*The assessee, therefore, the commission is however had failed to not taxable under any discharge the obligation. provision of Income Tax Act, Therefore, the hence, no TDS was deducted expendituretlaimed under from such commission the head Commission payment to nonresidents for export sales. expenses paid.to nori residents is disallowed

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1`),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

Permanent services rendered by Establishment in India, them.*The assessee, therefore, the commission is however had failed to not taxable under any discharge the obligation. provision of Income Tax Act, Therefore, the hence, no TDS was deducted expendituretlaimed under from such commission the head Commission payment to nonresidents for export sales. expenses paid.to nori residents is disallowed

THE DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

Permanent services rendered by Establishment in India, them.*The assessee, therefore, the commission is however had failed to not taxable under any discharge the obligation. provision of Income Tax Act, Therefore, the hence, no TDS was deducted expendituretlaimed under from such commission the head Commission payment to nonresidents for export sales. expenses paid.to nori residents is disallowed

KIRI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

disallowance was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) 8. At the outset, it was submitted that the amounts have been paid to non-resident agents who are not tax payable entities in India for the services rendered abroad. The commission agents who have been paid commission do not have any permanent establishment

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. MRS. CRYOGAS EQUIPOMNET PVT. LTD.,, VADODARA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed the payment made by the appellant for Advertisement fee and Sponsorship fee when the payee does not have permanent establishment

DCIT, CIRCLE-2 (1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. JAGSON COLORCHEM LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं. Ita No.112/Ahd/2017 With Co No. 32/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Asstt. Years: 2013-14

permanent establishment or business connection in India. The submission given by the appellant clearly demonstrates its bona fide belief. Therefore, considering the above discussion, there was no liability on the part of the appellant to deduct tax under section 195 of the Act or approach the I.T. Authorities for no deduction tax certificate. IT No. 112/Ahd/2017 A.Yr

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

permanent establishment in India; that in any case, the impugned amounts were not liable to tax in India. References were made to several decisions in this regard. 12. The ld.DR, on the other hand, pointed out that these arguments were not made by the ld.counsel for the assessee before the lower authorities and were being raised for the first time

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

permanent establishment in India; that in any case, the impugned amounts were not liable to tax in India. References were made to several decisions in this regard. 12. The ld.DR, on the other hand, pointed out that these arguments were not made by the ld.counsel for the assessee before the lower authorities and were being raised for the first time

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

permanent establishment in India; that in any case, the impugned amounts were not liable to tax in India. References were made to several decisions in this regard. 12. The ld.DR, on the other hand, pointed out that these arguments were not made by the ld.counsel for the assessee before the lower authorities and were being raised for the first time

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

permanent establishment in India; that in any case, the impugned amounts were not liable to tax in India. References were made to several decisions in this regard. 12. The ld.DR, on the other hand, pointed out that these arguments were not made by the ld.counsel for the assessee before the lower authorities and were being raised for the first time

ELECTROTHERM (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed by the AO under section 40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 of the Act. The assessee pleaded before the learned CIT(A) that tax was not deducted because such income was not liable to be taxed in India. It was submitted that the commission paid to foreign agents for providing services outside India and they were not having permanent establishment

THE JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ELECTROTHERM (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed by the AO under section 40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 of the Act. The assessee pleaded before the learned CIT(A) that tax was not deducted because such income was not liable to be taxed in India. It was submitted that the commission paid to foreign agents for providing services outside India and they were not having permanent establishment

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

disallowed the said amount under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Before 20 the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), the assessee submitted that the testing services were performed entirely outside India and the non- resident recipient had no business connection or permanent establishment