BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

33 results for “disallowance”+ Permanent Establishmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,096Mumbai901Chennai500Bangalore284Kolkata231Ahmedabad163Jaipur114Chandigarh76Cochin70Indore52Raipur49Pune49Amritsar39Karnataka39Hyderabad33Visakhapatnam32Cuttack27Rajkot25Guwahati24Surat16Lucknow15SC13Varanasi11Agra8Dehradun8Panaji7Nagpur6Telangana4Kerala3Patna2Calcutta1Jodhpur1Jabalpur1Allahabad1Rajasthan1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)36Section 4025Section 80I23Section 115J22Addition to Income21Disallowance20Section 19518Deduction18Double Taxation/DTAA12

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. TRIDENT CHEMPHAR LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 433/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Trident Chemphar Ltd. Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pan : Aaeft8416H. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.01.2023

For Appellant: Shri B.G. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar – CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 195Section 40

establishing that the services were actually rendered by the foreign agents. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance of commission made u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act even though the assessee failed to deduct tax u/s. 195 of the Act from the commission

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2

Permanent Establishment11
TDS11
Section 33B10

ANANTH TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED.,HYDERABAD. vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

permanent establishment in India, being a non-resident and having covered by DTAA India and USA. The commission paid to the said agent for the services rendered outside India are not taxable in India as per the provisions of Section 9 and hence no TDS is required to be deducted. AO, however, contended that as per the provisions of Section

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 228/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Electronics Corporation Of India Vs. Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Ecil Post, Moulali, Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace4809L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C.S. Subrahmanyam Revenue By: Shri Yvst Sai – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri C.S. SubrahmanyamFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai – CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 9Section 90(2)

permanent establishment in India, the business profits of USA resident were not taxable in India. Accordingly, no TDS u/s 195 was warranted. 16. In respect to the payment made to Syscom Instruments, Switzerland, the assessee had submitted before us during the course of argument, that the assessee was wrongly advised to take MFN clause, however, the same was not applicable

NUNHEMS INDIA PVT.LTD.,,R.R.DIST vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 290/HYD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

permanent establishment. This view is supported by the decision of the Coordinate Bench. 42. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Paradigm Geophysical Pty. Ltd. 122 ITD 155 (2010) held as follows:- "What art. 7(7) seems to convey is that where the business profits of the non- resident include items of income for which

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,R.R.DIST vs. JCIT, RANGE 16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 327/HYD/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

permanent establishment. This view is supported by the decision of the Coordinate Bench. 42. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Paradigm Geophysical Pty. Ltd. 122 ITD 155 (2010) held as follows:- "What art. 7(7) seems to convey is that where the business profits of the non- resident include items of income for which

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.CIT,CIRCLE 16(1),,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 1775/HYD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

permanent establishment. This view is supported by the decision of the Coordinate Bench. 42. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Paradigm Geophysical Pty. Ltd. 122 ITD 155 (2010) held as follows:- "What art. 7(7) seems to convey is that where the business profits of the non- resident include items of income for which

REASONING GLOBAL E-APPLICATIONS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2028/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Reasoning Global E- Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Application Ltd, Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aadcr6701P Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Swapnil Deshmukh, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-3, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing It Enabled Electronic Commerce Services. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2012-13 On 30.09.2012 Declaring Loss Of Rs.9,52,71,232/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Has Debited An Amount Of Rs.1,02,18,116/- Towards Web Hosting Charges. From The Bills/Invoices Produced For The Expenditure So Claimed, The Page 1 Of 19

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Deshmukh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 9(1)(vi)

permanent establishment in India as inapplicable, in so far as the taxability of non- residents is concerned. It is therefore evident that even though the nonresident organization is not having any place of business in India, the provisions of sec. 195 are applicable and the assessee is liable to deduct tax while making any payments to a nonresident. Page

CATERPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH-INDIA PROJECT OFFICE,KARIMNAGAR vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION-1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 610/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

Permanent Establishment and clause (i) thereof includes a building site or construction, installation or assembly project or supervisory activities in connection therewith , where such site, project or activities continue for a period exceeding six months. In the case before us, the activities under contract No.I did exceed six months. The contract was signed on 21.11.2006 while, DGMS approval was received

CATERPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH,PEDDAPALLI vs. ASSISTANT OF INCOME TAX -1,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ,HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 116/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

Permanent Establishment and clause (i) thereof includes a building site or construction, installation or assembly project or supervisory activities in connection therewith , where such site, project or activities continue for a period exceeding six months. In the case before us, the activities under contract No.I did exceed six months. The contract was signed on 21.11.2006 while, DGMS approval was received

CATERPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH,PEDDAPALLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1127/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

Permanent Establishment and clause (i) thereof includes a building site or construction, installation or assembly project or supervisory activities in connection therewith , where such site, project or activities continue for a period exceeding six months. In the case before us, the activities under contract No.I did exceed six months. The contract was signed on 21.11.2006 while, DGMS approval was received

CSATERRPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH,GODAVARIKHANI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2072/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

Permanent Establishment and clause (i) thereof includes a building site or construction, installation or assembly project or supervisory activities in connection therewith , where such site, project or activities continue for a period exceeding six months. In the case before us, the activities under contract No.I did exceed six months. The contract was signed on 21.11.2006 while, DGMS approval was received

CATTERPILLAR MINING EUROPE GMBH-INDIA PROJECT OFFICE, KARIMNAGAR,KARIMNAGAR vs. DCIT-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 483/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

Permanent Establishment and clause (i) thereof includes a building site or construction, installation or assembly project or supervisory activities in connection therewith , where such site, project or activities continue for a period exceeding six months. In the case before us, the activities under contract No.I did exceed six months. The contract was signed on 21.11.2006 while, DGMS approval was received

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1) , HYDERABAD vs. GAIAN SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 569/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Sri SVD Vijay Bhaskar, AdvFor Respondent: Sri Srikanth S, D.R
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40Section 69Section 69C

permanent establishment In India does not attracts TDS provisions u/ s 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further we would like to bring your kind notice that the requirement of TDS is not applicable with respect to reimbursement of expenses. In addition we invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Transmission Corporation

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SATYAM VENTURE ENGINEERING SERVICE PVT LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1242/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1242/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dy. Cit Vs. Satyam Venture Central Circle 3(2) Engineering Service Hyderabad Private Limited Hyderabad Pan: Aafcs3287D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Ev Sri Krishna राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri T.V. Vamsidhar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14/06/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A), Hyderabad -11 For The A.Y.2022-23. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: CA EV Sri KrishnaFor Respondent: : Shri T.V. Vamsidhar, Sr. AR
Section 40

permanent establishment (PE) in India, therefore, the said income is not chargeable to tax in India. The learned CIT (A) has allowed the claim of the assessee and deleted the disallowance

SHELADIA ASSOCIATES INC,SD ROAD vs. ADIT(INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 537/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 537/Hyd/2023 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Sheladia Associates Inc, Adit (Int Taxn)-2, Secunderabad Vs. Hyderabad [Pan No. Aafcs7792F] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Aluru V. Sai Sudha, ARFor Respondent: Ms. L. Sunitha Rao, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 37Section 44C

permanent establishment of a foreign company located in the USA. It is engaged in the business of engineering and engineering consultancy services. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 2021-22 on 30/10/2020, by declaring a total income of Rs. 3,80,95,360/-. Learned Assessing Officer, by order dated 31/12/2022, proposed to make addition

SHELADIA ASSOCIATES INC,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT(INT TAXN)-2,HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 423/HYD/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Oct 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

disallowance of Rs.32,43,680/- claimed towards expenditure for third party vendors, Rs.1,81,67,730/- claimed towards direct expense recorded as business development expense. Both the authorities below held that the claim of expenditure under these stands is not be allowed. Hence, this appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a permanent establishment

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 332/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 195(2)Section 40

permanent establishment of the recipient in India, it cannot be taxed in India in terms of Article 5 read with Article 7 of India-Australia DTAA. (e) Erred in concluding that the business support services are rendered in India without any basis and purely on presumptions, surmises and conjectures. (f) Notwithstanding the above, the Ld. Authorities have erred

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 975/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, Sriram SeshadriFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 195Section 234ASection 40Section 92C

Permanent Establishment [in short “PE”] in India. Therefore, it is necessary for us to examine the payment 16 ITA.No.975/Hyd./2024 made by the appellant-company to ADP-Australia for receiving business support services in terms of agreement between the parties and in light of provisions of sec.9(1)(vii) read with Tax Treaty between India and Australia. 12. Section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSPIRA MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAB

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1791/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Nspira Management Circle-16(1) Services Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr.Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

Permanent Establishment in India.” 2 ITA.No.1791/Hyd/2019 2. Before us, the Ld. DR for the Revenue had drawn our attention to paragraph 4 of the order passed by the AO, wherein the AO had mentioned that assessee had paid the reference charges of Rs.6,33,50,000/- to M/s. CX Partners Pte Limited and consultancy charges of Rs.1

BLEND COLOURS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1137/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Pan – Aaccb 2492 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccb 2492 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sidharth Toshnival Revenue By: Shri A. Sitarama Rao Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2021

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Shri A. Sitarama Rao
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

establishing the business expediency for payment of commission, disallowed the whole commission payments of Rs. 2,74,76,118/- incurred by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). :- 6 -: Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee, inter-alia, submitted that the appellant case selected