DDIT (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. ABU DHABI COMMERCIAL BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos.4926 To 4928/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2006-07 Abu Dhabi Commercial The Dcit (International बनाम/ Bank Ltd., Taxation)-1(1), Vs. 75B Rehmat Manzil, Scindia House, Veer Nariman Road, Narottam Morarjee Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 038 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 3760/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 The Dcit (International Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank बनाम/ Taxation)-1(1), Ltd., Vs. Scindia House, 75B Rehmat Manzil, Narottam Morarjee Marg, Veer Nariman Road, Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 C.O. No. 121/Mum/2013 (Arising Out Of I.Ta No. 3760/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 Abu Dhabi Commercial The Dcit (International बनाम/ Bank Ltd., Taxation)-1(1), Vs. 75B Rehmat Manzil, Scindia House, Veer Nariman Road, Narottam Morarjee Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 038 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca 4216B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Dhanesh Bafna अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee By: Ms. Chandni Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Revenue By:

Permanent Establishments (see in particular paragraphs 72-92 of Part I of the report) for the purposes of the application of paragraph 2 of Article 7. In the context of that paragraph, the "economic" ownership of a debt-claim means the equivalent of ownership for income tax purposes by a separate enterprise, with the attendant benefits and burdens

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

M/S. CALYON BANK (FORMERLY CREDIT AGRICOLE INDUSUER),MUMBAI vs. DDIT (I.T) 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal, as filed by the department is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vivek Varma

Permanent establishment must be accorded the same facilities with regard to depreciation and reserves. Permanent establishment should also have option

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

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. 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

TAJ TV LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (IT) RG 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla,Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja,Am

Permanent Establishment in India and other relevant aspects specified in the assessment order.” Without prejudice to above, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the ADIT has erred in law and in facts in concluding that Taz TV Ltd. („Taz‟) has the income chargeable to tax in India without rebutting the fact that it has remunerated its agent

ADIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI vs. TAJ TV LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla,Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja,Am

Permanent Establishment in India and other relevant aspects specified in the assessment order.” Without prejudice to above, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the ADIT has erred in law and in facts in concluding that Taz TV Ltd. („Taz‟) has the income chargeable to tax in India without rebutting the fact that it has remunerated its agent

TAJ TV LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (IT) RG 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla,Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja,Am

Permanent Establishment in India and other relevant aspects specified in the assessment order.” Without prejudice to above, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the ADIT has erred in law and in facts in concluding that Taz TV Ltd. („Taz‟) has the income chargeable to tax in India without rebutting the fact that it has remunerated its agent

ADDL DIT RG 2, MUMBAI vs. TAJ TV LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla,Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja,Am

Permanent Establishment in India and other relevant aspects specified in the assessment order.” Without prejudice to above, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the ADIT has erred in law and in facts in concluding that Taz TV Ltd. („Taz‟) has the income chargeable to tax in India without rebutting the fact that it has remunerated its agent

TAJ TV LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT RG 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla,Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja,Am

Permanent Establishment in India and other relevant aspects specified in the assessment order.” Without prejudice to above, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the ADIT has erred in law and in facts in concluding that Taz TV Ltd. („Taz‟) has the income chargeable to tax in India without rebutting the fact that it has remunerated its agent

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. 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

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

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT(IT) 2 (1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleorder Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. These Cross Appeals Are Filled By The Assessee & Revenue Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter In Short "Ld.Cit(A)"] Dated 28.12.2018 For The A.Ys.2002-03 & 2003-04. 2. Since The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Revenue Appeals

Permanent Establishment (PE) on moneys lent to it by the Head Office / overseas branches of any banking enterprise would be taken into consideration in determining the profits attributable to that PE. 3.3 The learned CIT (A) ought to have allowed deduction for interest payment by the Appellant to its Head Office / overseas branches and accordingly, disallowance should be deleted