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

44D or section 44DA or section 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

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

44D or section 44DA or section 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

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

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES GRL LLC,MUMBAI vs. JDIT (IT) RG 4, MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

44D and section 115A(l)(b)(A) would be applicable to the Appellant. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned AO and the DRP authorities have erred in taking a without prejudice argument that in the event at any appellate level, provisions of Article 12(6) are not considered

LUCENT TECHNOLGIES GRL LLC,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

TDS was made and therefore, since proceedings are initiated under section 148 assessee cannot seek any benefit in the proceedings initiated for the benefit of the revenue . He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of K. Sudhakar S. Shanbhag Vs ITO (241 ITR 865) for the proposition of “doctrine of election”. Hence

M/S. I 2 TECHNOLOGIES (NETHERLAND) B.V.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee for AYs 2002-03, 2004-05 are allowed and the appeal filed by Revenue against deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Pawan Singh

44D and the receipt of Rs. 32,27,028/- received from M/s Agrotech Food Ltd. was treated as royalty and taxed @ 15%. The Ld. CIT(A) while considering the appeal of the assessee held that the consideration received by the assessee is only for the right to use the copyright and not copyrighted article. The ld. CIT(A) also concluded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED, MUMBAI

44D have to be allowed as expenses.\nAfter including such receipts of income and after deducting such expenses,\nthe total of net receipts are profits of the business of the assessee computed\nunder the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession" from which\ndeductions are to be made under Clauses (1) and (2) of Explanation (baa) to\nsection

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

44D have to be allowed as expenses.\nAfter including such receipts of income and after deducting such expenses,\nthe total of net receipts are profits of the business of the assessee computed\nunder the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession\" from which\ndeductions are to be made under Clauses (1) and (2) of Explanation (baa) to\nsection

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

TDS) took note of the above position, as also the fact that under paragraph 16 of the agreement in question APP-Australia had the responsibility to complete the job in 36 months, and sought information from JHPL-India about the rate at ITA Nos.: 931 to 933/M/2005 Assessment years: 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Page 3 of 7 which

PATEL PRATIBHA JV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 24(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

44D of the Act) as a reasonable profit. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated 92% of the receipts as the market value of the services availed from M/s. Pratibha Industries Ltd., and accordingly, the amount paid in excess has been disallowed in terms of Section 40A(2) of the Act. Considering the situation of Assessment Year 2008-09, such an addition

PATEL PRATIBHA JV,MUMBAI vs. ITO 31(2)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

44D of the Act) as a reasonable profit. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated 92% of the receipts as the market value of the services availed from M/s. Pratibha Industries Ltd., and accordingly, the amount paid in excess has been disallowed in terms of Section 40A(2) of the Act. Considering the situation of Assessment Year 2008-09, such an addition

PATEL PRATIBHA JV,MUMBAI vs. ITO 31(2)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

44D of the Act) as a reasonable profit. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated 92% of the receipts as the market value of the services availed from M/s. Pratibha Industries Ltd., and accordingly, the amount paid in excess has been disallowed in terms of Section 40A(2) of the Act. Considering the situation of Assessment Year 2008-09, such an addition

PATEL PRATIBHA JV,MUMBAI vs. ITO 31(2)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

44D of the Act) as a reasonable profit. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated 92% of the receipts as the market value of the services availed from M/s. Pratibha Industries Ltd., and accordingly, the amount paid in excess has been disallowed in terms of Section 40A(2) of the Act. Considering the situation of Assessment Year 2008-09, such an addition

REFINITIV LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DDIT (IT)-2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

44D of the act. He accordingly tax the revenues of the assessee received from routers India private limited in the form of distribution fee, product distribution fee and license fee on gross basis at 30% up the provisions of section 115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that

ADIT (IT)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. REUTERS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

44D of the act. He accordingly tax the revenues of the assessee received from routers India private limited in the form of distribution fee, product distribution fee and license fee on gross basis at 30% up the provisions of section 115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that

REFINITIV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

44D of the act. He accordingly tax the revenues of the assessee received from routers India private limited in the form of distribution fee, product distribution fee and license fee on gross basis at 30% up the provisions of section 115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that

DDIT (INTERNATIONAL I. T) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. REUTERS ON LINE S.A, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

44D of the act. He accordingly tax the revenues of the assessee received from routers India private limited in the form of distribution fee, product distribution fee and license fee on gross basis at 30% up the provisions of section 115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that

THE DDIT(IT)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. REUTERS LTD, UK, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

44D of the act. He accordingly tax the revenues of the assessee received from routers India private limited in the form of distribution fee, product distribution fee and license fee on gross basis at 30% up the provisions of section 115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that

DDIT (I.T) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. REUTERS LTD., MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

44D of the act. He accordingly tax the revenues of the assessee received from routers India private limited in the form of distribution fee, product distribution fee and license fee on gross basis at 30% up the provisions of section 115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that