SUPERB MIND HOLDING LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

CAPITAL GAINS 1. Gains from the alienation of immovable property, as defined in paragraph (2) of Article 6, may be taxed in the Contracting State in which such property is situated. 2. Gains from the alienation of movable property forming part of the business property of a permanent establishment

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

permanent establishment has been misconceived and the addition so made be thus held as untenable which addition deserves to be deleted. 2.2 That the Ld AO/DRP has erred in holding that the alleged profit of supplies of equipment by the Appellant to MSIL are taxable in India despite the fact that title of equipment had passed in Japan and supplies

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Capital gain on movable property of Permanent Establishment), 13(3) (Capital gain on ships and aircrafts), 13(3A) (Capital gain

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. NOKIA CORPORATION (FORMERELY KNOWN AS NOKIA NETWORK OY)

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

gains significant relevance where the omission is profitable (e.g., in the case of a place of business earning money in the source State simply by fulfilling, for whichever period of time, a non- competition agreement relating to the territory of that State). 138. However, a diffuse passivity which equals a (temporal or lasting) suspension of the activities which the place

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. NOKIA CORPORATION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NOKIA NETWORK OY)

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

gains significant relevance where the omission is profitable (e.g., in the case of a place of business earning money in the source State simply by fulfilling, for whichever period of time, a non- competition agreement relating to the territory of that State). 138. However, a diffuse passivity which equals a (temporal or lasting) suspension of the activities which the place

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. NOKIA CORPORATION (FORMERELY KNOWN AS NOKIA NETWORK OY)

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

gains significant relevance where the omission is profitable (e.g., in the case of a place of business earning money in the source State simply by fulfilling, for whichever period of time, a non- competition agreement relating to the territory of that State). 138. However, a diffuse passivity which equals a (temporal or lasting) suspension of the activities which the place

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. NOKIA CORPORATION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NOKIA NETWORK OY)

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

gains significant relevance where the omission is profitable (e.g., in the case of a place of business earning money in the source State simply by fulfilling, for whichever period of time, a non- competition agreement relating to the territory of that State). 138. However, a diffuse passivity which equals a (temporal or lasting) suspension of the activities which the place

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. NOKIA CORPORATION (FORMERELY KNOWN AS NOKIA NETWORK OY)

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

gains significant relevance where the omission is profitable (e.g., in the case of a place of business earning money in the source State simply by fulfilling, for whichever period of time, a non- competition agreement relating to the territory of that State). 138. However, a diffuse passivity which equals a (temporal or lasting) suspension of the activities which the place

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. NOKIA CORPORATION (FORMERELY KNOWN AS NOKIA NETWORK OY)

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

gains significant relevance where the omission is profitable (e.g., in the case of a place of business earning money in the source State simply by fulfilling, for whichever period of time, a non- competition agreement relating to the territory of that State). 138. However, a diffuse passivity which equals a (temporal or lasting) suspension of the activities which the place

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. NOKIA CORPORATION (FORMERELY KNOWN AS NOKIA NETWORK OY)

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

gains significant relevance where the omission is profitable (e.g., in the case of a place of business earning money in the source State simply by fulfilling, for whichever period of time, a non- competition agreement relating to the territory of that State). 138. However, a diffuse passivity which equals a (temporal or lasting) suspension of the activities which the place

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. NOKIA CORPORATION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NOKIA NETWORK OY)

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

gains significant relevance where the omission is profitable (e.g., in the case of a place of business earning money in the source State simply by fulfilling, for whichever period of time, a non- competition agreement relating to the territory of that State). 138. However, a diffuse passivity which equals a (temporal or lasting) suspension of the activities which the place

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. NOKIA NETWORK OY

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

gains significant relevance where the omission is profitable (e.g., in the case of a place of business earning money in the source State simply by fulfilling, for whichever period of time, a non- competition agreement relating to the territory of that State). 138. However, a diffuse passivity which equals a (temporal or lasting) suspension of the activities which the place

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. NOKIA CORPORATION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NOKIA NETWORK OY)

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

gains significant relevance where the omission is profitable (e.g., in the case of a place of business earning money in the source State simply by fulfilling, for whichever period of time, a non- competition agreement relating to the territory of that State). 138. However, a diffuse passivity which equals a (temporal or lasting) suspension of the activities which the place

EMERGING INDIA FOCUS FUNDS,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(2)(2), DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

CAPITAL GAINS 1. Gains from the alienation of immovable property, as defined in paragraph (2) of article 6, may be taxed in the Contracting State in which such property is situated. 2. Gains from the alienation of movable property forming part of the business property of a permanent establishment

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INFRASOFT LTD

capital gains in the other country. 2013:DHC:6018 ======================================================================= ITA 1034/2009 Page 71 of 174 48. The Supreme Court further referred to the commentary of Klaus Vogel that Double Taxation Convention establishes an independent mechanism to avoid double taxation through restriction of tax claims in areas where overlapping tax claims are expected, or at least theoretically possible. In other words

NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC. vs. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-I,

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Permanent Establishment (hereafter 'PE') in India and consequently, is chargeable to tax under the Act in respect of its business income attributable to its PE in India. Factual background 8. The Assessee (formerly known as Nortel Networks RIHC Inc) was incorporated as a company on 7th June, 2002 under the laws applicable in the State of Delaware

NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC. vs. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX I

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Permanent Establishment (hereafter 'PE') in India and consequently, is chargeable to tax under the Act in respect of its business income attributable to its PE in India. Factual background 8. The Assessee (formerly known as Nortel Networks RIHC Inc) was incorporated as a company on 7th June, 2002 under the laws applicable in the State of Delaware

M/S. NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC. vs. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-I

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Permanent Establishment (hereafter 'PE') in India and consequently, is chargeable to tax under the Act in respect of its business income attributable to its PE in India. Factual background 8. The Assessee (formerly known as Nortel Networks RIHC Inc) was incorporated as a company on 7th June, 2002 under the laws applicable in the State of Delaware