TRANS WORLD INTERNATIONAL LLC,DELAWARE, USA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1)(vi) read with India-USA Double Tax Avoidance Agreement\n('DTAA').\n\n4.1.\nThe Ld.AO as well as the Ld. DRP has erred in facts\nand in law holding that receipts for live content from\ngranting broadcasting rights involve transfer of rights in\nrespect of 'process' as per Explanation 6 to section 9(J)(vi

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act brought into force by the Finance Act, 2012 are applicable to domestic laws and the said amended definition cannot be extended to DTAA, where the term has been defined originally and not amended." xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. In view of the above said facts, we hold that there is no merit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act brought into force by the Finance Act, 2012 are applicable to domestic laws and the said amended definition cannot be extended to DTAA, where the term has been defined originally and not amended." xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. In view of the above said facts, we hold that there is no merit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act brought into force by the Finance Act, 2012 are applicable to domestic laws and the said amended definition cannot be extended to DTAA, where the term has been defined originally and not amended." xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. In view of the above said facts, we hold that there is no merit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act brought into force by the Finance Act, 2012 are applicable to domestic laws and the said amended definition cannot be extended to DTAA, where the term has been defined originally and not amended." xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. In view of the above said facts, we hold that there is no merit

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,USA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

TDS thereon under section 195 even though the consideration so received is chargeable to tax both under the definition of royalty under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,USA vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

TDS thereon under section 195 even though the consideration so received is chargeable to tax both under the definition of royalty under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi

M/S. BAIN & COMPANY INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS) (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, the persons liable to deduct TDS under section 195 of the Income

MR. SANJEEV GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No. 3 and 4 With respect to the disallowance of export commission of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishisanjeev Gupta, Vs. Addl. Cit, E-31, Kamla Nagar, Range-20, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Ahcpg7326A (Appellant) (Respondent)

9 (1) (vii) of the Act and therefore TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— ( Sectio i n ) 40(a)( i) of the Act :— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GEO CONNECT LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

TDS u/s 194J is as per the definition given in Explanation 2 to section 9(1 )(vii). Going by the citation above and aligning to the facts under appeal, the appellant has paid for connectivity charges to non residents. The appellant is a resident. The charges were not payable with respect of services utilized in the business by the appellant

GEO CONVEST LTD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-12 (1),

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

TDS u/s 194J is as per the definition given in Explanation 2 to section 9(1 )(vii). Going by the citation above and aligning to the facts under appeal, the appellant has paid for connectivity charges to non residents. The appellant is a resident. The charges were not payable with respect of services utilized in the business by the appellant

DCIT CIRCLE-12 (1) vs. GEO CONNECT LTD,

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

TDS u/s 194J is as per the definition given in Explanation 2 to section 9(1 )(vii). Going by the citation above and aligning to the facts under appeal, the appellant has paid for connectivity charges to non residents. The appellant is a resident. The charges were not payable with respect of services utilized in the business by the appellant

M/S GEO CONNECT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

TDS u/s 194J is as per the definition given in Explanation 2 to section 9(1 )(vii). Going by the citation above and aligning to the facts under appeal, the appellant has paid for connectivity charges to non residents. The appellant is a resident. The charges were not payable with respect of services utilized in the business by the appellant

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

vi) and (vii) of sub-section (1) of Section 9, such income shall be included in the total income of the non-resident, regardless of whether the non-resident has a residence or place of business or 2011:DHC:6682-DB ITA 504/2007, ITA 507/2007, ITA 508/2007,ITA 511/2007, ITA 397/2007 Page 69 of 75 business connection in India. However

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. ERICSSON A.B.,NEW DELHI.

vi) and (vii) of sub-section (1) of Section 9, such income shall be included in the total income of the non-resident, regardless of whether the non-resident has a residence or place of business or 2011:DHC:6682-DB ITA 504/2007, ITA 507/2007, ITA 508/2007,ITA 511/2007, ITA 397/2007 Page 69 of 75 business connection in India. However

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. KULBEER SINGH, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Kulbeer Singh, Ward-26(1), H-432, Vikas Puri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Amqps5847P (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS when non- residents provided service outside India . It was held that when the services are provided outside India, the commission payments made to non- residents cannot be treated as income deemed to accrue or arise in India, therefore, the provisions of section 195 has no application. In order to invoke the provisions of section

DLF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3253/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 3254/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09)

1, the CIT (A) erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer by holding that the payments made by the assessee towards hiring of aircraft does not constitute the nature of royalty. Further, holding that as per the definition of Royalty in section 9(i)(vi), the payment does not fall into the category of Royalty but failing

DLF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3253/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 3254/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09)

1, the CIT (A) erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer by holding that the payments made by the assessee towards hiring of aircraft does not constitute the nature of royalty. Further, holding that as per the definition of Royalty in section 9(i)(vi), the payment does not fall into the category of Royalty but failing