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

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

TDS on interest payable by the Indian borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the borrowers

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

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

TDS on interest payable by the Indian borrowers is born by them and that as per section 115A(5) of the borrowers

ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1464/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Atos Information Technology Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ Hk Limited, C/O Atos India Income Tax-(International V. Pvt. Ltd.,Plant No. 5, Taxation) – 1(1)(2), Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Scindia House, Ltd., Pirojshanagar, Lbs Mumbai. Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai 400 097. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aakcs8720L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

TDS as per section 199 of the Act read with Rule 37BA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act amounting to Rs. 42,11,918/-. The Appellant humbly prays that the Learned

ITO(IT)1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ATOS WORLDWIDE INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 6424/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बिाम/ Ito(It)1(1)(2) Atos Worldwide India Pvt. R.No. 113, First Floor, Ltd. Scindia House, N.M. Road, 701, Interface-11, V. Ballard Estate, New Link Road, Mumbai- 400038 Malad(W), Mumbai-400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace2403J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

TDS are advised to obtain PAN latest by 31.03.2010 and communicate the same to their deductors before income-tax is actually deducted on transaction after that date. The AO also relied upon the provisions of Section 2(37A)(iii) r.w.s 195 as well Section 90A, 195A, 206AA and 115A

SERVICOS DE PETROLEO CONSTELLATION SA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt Renu Jauhri, Am Servicos De Petroleo Constellation Sa Dcit(International Taxation), India Project Office: Circle-4(2)(1) Unit No. 1803 To 1808, 18Th Floor, Mumbai B-Wing, Business Park, Vs. Veer Savarkar Road, Part Site, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400 079

115A or section 293A apply for the purposes of computing profits or gains or any other income referred to in those sections. (2) The amounts referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely :— (a) the amount paid or payable3 (whether in or out of India) to the assessee or to any person on his behalf on account

CHETAN SHANTIAL SHAH,BARODA vs. ITO (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhshri Chetan Shantilal Shah Ito (International Taxation)- 36, Lavkush Apartment, 2(1), Mumbai. Pratapganj, Vs. Baroda-390002 Pan: Blnps4745R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nirmit Mehta (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

115A(1)(b)(BB) of the income tax Act for determining the rate of tax applicable on fees for technical services. ITA No. 102/Mum/2016- Shri Chetan Shantilal Shah (iv) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in facts and in law in not appreciating that the contention of assessee, that he had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. (v) The learned Commissioner

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shuklaita

115A which leads to the following interpretation: 1 Payment made by the M/s. Tata Chemical Ltd. Snampragetti SpA of Italy is in the nature of "fees for technical services" u/s.9(1)(vii) and 2. The aforesaid type of payment is taxable in India in the hands of SP of Italy @ 10.56% including surcharge and education cess as fees for technical

DCIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WEATHERFORD DRILLING INTERNATIONAL (BVI) LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3724/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Dcit(It) 4(3)(2) M/S. Weatherford Room No. 1728 Drilling International 17Th Floor, (Bvi) Ltd., V. Air India Building Unit 71 & 74, 7 Th Floor, Nariman Point Kalpataru Square, Mumbai 400021 Kondivita Lane, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacw7377F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. C.S Sharma, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Kishan Kumar Mundhra सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 3724/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.02.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 15.05.2013 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 144C(3) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Assessment Year 2010-11. I.T.A. No.3724/Mum/2017

115A or section 293A apply for the purposes of computing profits or gains or any other income referred to in those sections. (2) The amounts referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely:— (a) the amount paid or payable (whether in or out of India) to the assessee or to any person on his behalf on account

SEADRILL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

115A or section 293A apply\nfor the purposes of computing profits or gains or any other income referred to in\nthose sections.\n(2) The amounts referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely :—\n(a) the amount paid or payable (whether in or out of India) to the assessee or to\nany person on his behalf

M/S. SEAJULI PROPERTY &VINIYOG P. LTD (JUNIPER HOTELS P. LTD ),MUMBAI vs. THE ITO (I.T)2(1),

In the result, the appeals are dismissed in the terms indicated above

115A of the Act, not accepting the Appellant's contention that in any event the applicable rate of tax was 15% by operation of provision of section 90(2) of the Act as clarified by CBDT Circular No.728 dt.30-10-1995. 3. To adjudicate on these appeals, only a few material facts need to be taken note. The appellant before

ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

section 115A of the Act. 1.3 Without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1.1 to 1.2, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, while calculating the tax liability of the Appellant, the Learned AO has erred in taxing income on gross receipts instead of net receipts received by the Appellant, (i.e. after deducting the expenses attributable

GOLDMAN SACHS & CO,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-2(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

115A of the Act @ 10.30%. Even before the lower authorities, no such details were furnished by the assessee. Only details pertaining to the receipt of Rs.18,00,83,986, which were claimed as reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of GSSPL were filed in the proceedings before the learned DRP. As per the Revenue, since the assessee has claimed

GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

115A of the Act @ 10.30%. Even before the lower authorities, no such details were furnished by the assessee. Only details pertaining to the receipt of Rs.18,00,83,986, which were claimed as reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of GSSPL were filed in the proceedings before the learned DRP. As per the Revenue, since the assessee has claimed

GOLDMAN SACHS & COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

115A of the Act @ 10.30%. Even before the lower authorities, no such details were furnished by the assessee. Only details pertaining to the receipt of Rs.18,00,83,986, which were claimed as reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of GSSPL were filed in the proceedings before the learned DRP. As per the Revenue, since the assessee has claimed

GOLDMAN SACHS & CO.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 2(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

115A of the Act @ 10.30%. Even before the lower authorities, no such details were furnished by the assessee. Only details pertaining to the receipt of Rs.18,00,83,986, which were claimed as reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of GSSPL were filed in the proceedings before the learned DRP. As per the Revenue, since the assessee has claimed

FUGRO ROVTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIT (IT) 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1230/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2010-11) बनाम/ Fugro Rovtech Limited Asstt. Director Of Income Tax (Now Known As „Fugro Subsea (International Taxation)-3(2), Vs. 132, 1St Floor, Services Limited‟ C/O Srbc & Associates Scindia House, Llp, 16Th Floor, The Ruby, Ballard Pier, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400038 Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

TDS. Other grounds are general in nature and hence they do not require any adjudication. 2. The assessee is a foreign company incorporated in United Kingdom. It is engaged in the business of providing services in connection with prospecting, extraction and exploration of oil and gas. Another company named M/s Allseas Marine Contractors SA (hereinafter “Allseas”) was awarded a contract

STANDARD CHARTERED MASTERBRAND LICESING LTD,PALGHAR vs. CIT (IT)-4, MUMBAI

TDS and not about royalty.In his rejoinder the AR stated that para -2 of Circular No. 742 talks about section 115A

STAR TELEVISION ENTERTAINMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

TDS. Accordingly, as claimed by the assessee in submissions dated. 12.03.2013, vide Point No. 7 and dated. 18.03.2013, vide Point No. 9, the assessee itself has withheld taxes on the entire receipt of Rs. 42,55,32,513/-as its 'capital gains'. 18.3.10. In view of the above discussion, the goodwill, brand name, ' trademark, sanctions, approvals, licenses, viewership, clientele