DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

9(1)(vi) of\nthe Act and also as per DTAA, thereby holding such payment to be liable for deducting\ntax at source and in the failure of which the assessee is held to be an 'assessee in default'\nu/s.201(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) further held that the proviso to Section 201 and\nSection

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

9(1)(vi) of\nthe Act and also as per DTAA, thereby holding such payment to be liable for deducting\ntax at source and in the failure of which the assessee is held to be an 'assessee in default'\nu/s.201(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) further held that the proviso to Section 201 and\nSection

ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTL. TAX) RANGE 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

vi) and 9(1)(vii). This without prejudice to order by the Assessing Officer taxing the receipt as business income u/s. 9(1)(i) was never dealt with by the Assessing Officer in the original proceedings nor the ITAT has made any such remand for denovo adjudication. Hence, this issue raised by the assessee A.Ys

ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (IT)-1 (1)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

vi) and 9(1)(vii). This without prejudice to order by the Assessing Officer taxing the receipt as business income u/s. 9(1)(i) was never dealt with by the Assessing Officer in the original proceedings nor the ITAT has made any such remand for denovo adjudication. Hence, this issue raised by the assessee A.Ys

ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTL. TAX) RANGE 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

vi) and 9(1)(vii). This without prejudice to order by the Assessing Officer taxing the receipt as business income u/s. 9(1)(i) was never dealt with by the Assessing Officer in the original proceedings nor the ITAT has made any such remand for denovo adjudication. Hence, this issue raised by the assessee A.Ys

SPE INDIA FILMS HOLDING LLC,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (INTL TAX) -4(2) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result ground no-2 raised by the assessee- is fully allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalspe India Films Holding Llc C/O, Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp One International Centre, Tower No.3, 27Th Floor-32Nd Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aaocs1827L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit (International Taxation)-4(2)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Narimaon Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. P.J. Pardiwala/Paras Savla Respondent By : Sh. A.K. Keshari Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Drp’] Dated 06.01.2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant, Objects To The Order Dated 19 January 2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 2. Interest income of INR 28,48,508 taxed twice and at a higher rate 2.1. The learned ACIT erred in considering total income at INR 2,78,50,51,642 while computing the tax payable instead of INR 278,22,03,134 as determined in the aforesaid assessment order. 2.2 The error

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. UTV ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LTD(NOW KNOWN AS M/S.DISNEY BROADCASTING (INDIA) LIMITED), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5958/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit 16(1) Utv Entertainment R.No. 439, Aayakar Television Ltd. (Now Bhavan, M.K Marg, Known As M/S. Disney V. Mumbai 400020 Broadcasting (India) Ltd.) 11, Solitaire Corporate Park, Guru Hargovind Marg, Chakala , Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaccv4782D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Cit-Dr) Shri. Abhishek Tilak Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 5958/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 16.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 15.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.5958/Mum/2017

vi) of Section 9(1) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has also argued that ―Royalty‖ is covered under the provisions of section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 194J provides for deduction of TDS

ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

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:— (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary

M/S. SATELITE TELEVISION ASIAN REGION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (INT. I.T) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are partly

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

9(1)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, no disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(vi) of the Act, can be made in the present facts. (g) In the above view, as it is a self evident position from the reading Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, no substantial question of law. Thus, question (a) not entertained

GALATEA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RG 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Daym/S. Galatea Ltd. Dcit (International Taxation) P.O. 1156, Industrial Vs. Range 2(3)(2) Area, Dalton, Israel Mumbai Pan - Aadcg8396D Appellant Respondent

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act is not applicable in the case of the appellant owing to Article 12(3) of the Treaty, which has a separate definition of royalty. 6. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing credit of TDS

GALATEA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT IT RG 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal may be treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act is not applicable in the case of the appellant owing to Article 12(3) of the Treaty, which has a separate definition of royalty. 6. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing credit of TDS

DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.Balaganeshita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-8(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Shamrock Pharmachemi Room No.624, Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Off Dr. E Moses Road Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 025 Pan/Gir No.Aaacs6290H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 28/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Two Appeals Filed By Revenue In Ita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Mumbai In Appeals No.Cit(A)-14/It-170/15-16 & Cit(A)-14/It- 119/16-17, Dated 27/11/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/08/2016 By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-8(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

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:— (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

vi) and Article 12 of the India USA Tax Treaty and also by following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT (International Taxation) vs Intelsat Corporation held that 2011 (8) TMI 1248 held that no liability on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source on payment made to Intelsat Corporation

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

9(1)(vi) of the Act is domestic law meaning of the that term from 01.06.1976 as clarified by the Finance Act, 2012 and hence the meaning for purpose of Article 13 of India-UK DTAA as prescribed by Article 3(3) of India - UK DTAA" 4. In sum and substance, the solitary issue raised by the Revenue before

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

9(1)(vi) of the Act is domestic law meaning of the that term from 01.06.1976 as clarified by the Finance Act, 2012 and hence the meaning for purpose of Article 13 of India-UK DTAA as prescribed by Article 3(3) of India - UK DTAA" 4. In sum and substance, the solitary issue raised by the Revenue before

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 thereby making it incumbent upon all such persons to deduct tax at source and pay such tax deductible at source under section. 195 of the Act; Held, (i) that in all these cases, the licence" that was granted under the enduser licence agreement, was not a licence in terms of section

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 thereby making it incumbent upon all such persons to deduct tax at source and pay such tax deductible at source under section. 195 of the Act; Held, (i) that in all these cases, the licence" that was granted under the enduser licence agreement, was not a licence in terms of section

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

vi) and 9(l)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In doing so, the Learned AO and the DRP disregarded the Contract for Provision of Computing Services entered into between the Appellant and Standard Chartered Bank, India ('SCB India') for the services rendered by the Appellant to SCB India. The Appellant humbly prays that the aforesaid receipts