DCIT (IT) 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MSC MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING CO. SA ( MSC), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the Revenue and the cross objections by the assessee stands dismissed

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

permanent establishment has been explained. It is stated that for the purposes of paragraph 21(1), a right or property in respect of which income paid will be effectively connected with a PE if the economic ownership of that right or property is allocated to that PE. It is stated that the economic ownership of a right or property

DCIT (IT) 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MSC MEDITERANEAN SHIPPING CO. SA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit(It)3(2)(2), Mumbai – Vs. M/S. Msc Mediterranean 400 038 Shipping Co. Sa C/O. Msc Agency India (India) Pvt. Ltd., Msc House, Andheri – Kurla Road, Andheri – East, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aaccm4945P Appellant) .. Respondent) Co No.137/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year :2011-12) M/S. Msc Vs. Dcit(It)3(2)(2), Mumbai – 400 Mediterranean Shipping 038 Co. Sa C/O. Msc Agency India (India) Pvt. Ltd., Msc House, Andheri – Kurla Road, Andheri – East, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aaccm4945P Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Shri Narendra Kumar Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakkar

permanent establishment has been explained. It is stated that for the purposes of paragraph 21 (1), a right or property in respect of which income paid will be effectively connected with a PE if the economic ownership of that right or property is allocated to that PE. It is stated that the economic ownership of a right or property

ADIT (IT)-3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

establish that GCC/WSN were in full and complete control of the stadium where a match were being played. Thus, GCC/WSN was in a position to exploit the rights which were granted to LGEIL & HH as sub-licensee. While concluding his submissions on this issue he submitted that the agreements with the host cricketing board/association were never placed on record

M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (INT. TAXATION) - 3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

establish that GCC/WSN were in full and complete control of the stadium where a match were being played. Thus, GCC/WSN was in a position to exploit the rights which were granted to LGEIL & HH as sub-licensee. While concluding his submissions on this issue he submitted that the agreements with the host cricketing board/association were never placed on record

M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT IT-3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

establish that GCC/WSN were in full and complete control of the stadium where a match were being played. Thus, GCC/WSN was in a position to exploit the rights which were granted to LGEIL & HH as sub-licensee. While concluding his submissions on this issue he submitted that the agreements with the host cricketing board/association were never placed on record

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (I.T) - 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

permanent establishment in India. ■ Master Card and Visa International are membership associations and not profit making bodies; both these entities are acting on the principle of mutuality. ■ Under section 195(1) of the Act, the person responsible for paying is required to deduct tax only if the sum is chargeable under the provisions of the Act. When the amount

DORF KETAL CHEMICALS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Dorf Ketal Chemicals India Vs. Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax (Appeals) – 50 Room No.514, 5Th Floor 3, Dorf Ketal Tower Ramchandra Lane Earnest House Opp. Idbi Bank Nariman Point Kanchpada, Malad West Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 064 Mumbai - 400021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacd3819P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Depreciation 2,57,49,56 2,55,05,403 (2,44,162) On account of claimed under 5 regrouping of assets the Act into correct blocks Dividend Income 3,23,034 50,77,384 47,54,350 Dividend received (Exempt) from Brazilian subsidiary claimed 4 M/s. Dorf Ketal Chemicals India P. Ltd., as exempt by virtue of DTAA between India

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE & INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY.CIT OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONSL TAXATION) -2(1) (1) , MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. For AY 2010-11 the assessee filed the return of income on 11.10.2010 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,49,14,26,218/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. A reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) who determined

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY-CIT (INT. TAXATION)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. For AY 2010-11 the assessee filed the return of income on 11.10.2010 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,49,14,26,218/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. A reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) who determined

ADIT (IT) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. For AY 2010-11 the assessee filed the return of income on 11.10.2010 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,49,14,26,218/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. A reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) who determined

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Permanent Establishment (PE) in\nIndia. For AY 2010-11 the assessee filed the return of income on 11.10.2010\ndeclaring a total income of Rs.3,49,14,26,218/-. The case was selected for scrutiny\nand the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. A reference was made\n4\nITA No.1479 & Ors / Mum/2015\nCredit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (IT) 2 (1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Permanent Establishment (PE) in\nIndia. For AY 2010-11 the assessee filed the return of income on 11.10.2010\ndeclaring a total income of Rs.3,49,14,26,218/-. The case was selected for scrutiny\nand the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. A reference was made\n4\nITA No.1479 & Ors / Mum/2015\nCredit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank

DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Permanent Establishment (PE) in\nIndia. For AY 2010-11 the assessee filed the return of income on 11.10.2010\ndeclaring a total income of Rs.3,49,14,26,218/-. The case was selected for scrutiny\nand the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. A reference was made\nto the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) who determined the Arm's Length

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Permanent Establishment (PE) in\nIndia. For AY 2010-11 the assessee filed the return of income on 11.10.2010\ndeclaring a total income of Rs.3,49,14,26,218/-. The case was selected for scrutiny\nand the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. A reference was made\nto the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) who determined the Arm's Length

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE & INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE JT CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATIONA), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Permanent Establishment (PE) in\nIndia. For AY 2010-11 the assessee filed the return of income on 11.10.2010\ndeclaring a total income of Rs.3,49,14,26,218/-. The case was selected for scrutiny\nand the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. A reference was made\nto the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) who determined the Arm's Length

SWANSTON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

depreciation in respect of the building of coal fire boiler, the reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result the ground of appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singhbank Of India A C I T - 2(1) C-5, G Block, Star House Aayakar Bhavan 8Th Floor, Taxation Deptt. Vs. M.K Road Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaacb0472C Appellant Respondent D C I T - 2(1) Bank Of India Room No. 561, 5Th Floor C-5, G Block, Star House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Road Vs. 8Th Floor, Taxation Deptt. Mumbai 400020 Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaacb0472C Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri C. Naresh Revenue By: Shri Purushottam Tripuri Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.08.2018 O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, Am These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-4, Mumbai Dated 27.11.2012 For A.Y. 2005-06 In The Matter Of Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

permanent establishment abroad, then, the Assessee would have to produce evidence regarding payment of taxes pertaining to the income of these establishments abroad. On production of such evidence, the Assessee would be entitled to the benefit. That evidence was always available and as noted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the authorities

MOBILEUM INC,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

permanent establishment in India its income is not taxable in India as it has paid arm’s length remuneration/commission to its agent in India which is taxed in India and therefore no adjustment to be made in the hands of the assessee, is decided in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case