DDIT (IT)-4(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. LINKLATERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelinklaters V. Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent) Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) V. Linklaters Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent)

permanent establishment in India under Article 5(2)(k) of the Tax Treaty between India and the U.K 2. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have specifically directed the Assessing Officer to assess 5 ITA NO. 3039/MUM/2008 (A.Y: 2005-06) Linklaters the appellant only in respect of fees of £ 300,491 55, which were relatable to work performed

BNP PARIBAS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONA TAXATION)-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

permanent establishment by reason\nof the mere purchase by that permanent establishment of goods or\nmerchandise for the enterprise.\n5.\nFor the purpose of the preceding paragraphs, the profits to be attributed\nto the permanent establishment shall be determined by the same\nmethod year by year unless there is good and sufficient reason to the\ncontrary.\n6.\nWhere profits include

RGA INTERNATIONAL REINSURANCE COMPANY DESIGNATED AUTHORITY COMPQNY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 4(1) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

permanent establishment in India. This is evident from paragraph no. 16 and concluding paragraph no. 33 of the judgment. These paragraphs, in brief, are as under: 16."........... Therefore, there is a difference between the taxability of the PE in respect of its income earned by it in India which is in accordance with the Income Tax Act, 1961 and which

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -16(2), MUMBAI

Permanent Establishment (PE) or fixed base in India, respectively, the same was not liable to tax in India. The Assessee was, therefore, not under obligation to deduct tax from the same and no disallowance

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

Permanent Establishment (PE) or fixed base in India, respectively, the same was not liable to tax in India. The Assessee was, therefore, not under obligation to deduct tax from the same and no disallowance

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

Permanent Establishment (PE) or fixed base in India, respectively, the same was not liable to tax in India. The Assessee was, therefore, not under obligation to deduct tax from the same and no disallowance

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Permanent Establishment (PE) or fixed base in India, respectively, the same was not liable to tax in India. The Assessee was, therefore, not under obligation to deduct tax from the same and no disallowance

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Permanent Establishment (PE) or fixed base in India, respectively, the same was not liable to tax in India. The Assessee was, therefore, not under obligation to deduct tax from the same and no disallowance

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Permanent Establishment (PE) or fixed base in India, respectively, the same was not liable to tax in India. The Assessee was, therefore, not under obligation to deduct tax from the same and no disallowance

ASST CIT 16(2), MUMBAI vs. BSR AND CO. LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb7357B (Appellant) (Respondent) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Llp Acit – 16(2) Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaafb9852F (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Co. Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb4734C (Appellant) (Respondent)

permanent establishment in India, therefore, such incomes are not chargeable to tax in India so as to require deduction of tax at source. On this aspect also, we affirm the stand of the CIT (Appeals) that such payments are not liable for disallowance

ASST CIT 16(2), MUMBAI vs. BSR AND COMPANY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb7357B (Appellant) (Respondent) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Llp Acit – 16(2) Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaafb9852F (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Co. Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb4734C (Appellant) (Respondent)

permanent establishment in India, therefore, such incomes are not chargeable to tax in India so as to require deduction of tax at source. On this aspect also, we affirm the stand of the CIT (Appeals) that such payments are not liable for disallowance

ASST CIT 16(2), MUMBAI vs. BSR AND CO., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb7357B (Appellant) (Respondent) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Llp Acit – 16(2) Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaafb9852F (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Co. Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb4734C (Appellant) (Respondent)

permanent establishment in India, therefore, such incomes are not chargeable to tax in India so as to require deduction of tax at source. On this aspect also, we affirm the stand of the CIT (Appeals) that such payments are not liable for disallowance

ASIA TODAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Asia Today Limited, Asst. Director Of Income C/O. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Tax (International Ltd., Vs. Taxation)-2(2), 135, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Scindia House, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Bellard Estate, Pan: Aabca0249F Mumbai - 400039 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2007, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The Relevant Facts For Adjudication Of This Appeal Are As Under: The Assessee, Being A Foreign Telecasting Company Incorporated In Mauritius & Having Tax Residency Certificate Of Mauritius , During The Ay Under Consideration Was Engaged In The Production & Acquiring Rights Of Various Television Films Including Feature Films, As A Copy Right Owner/Holder Of Various Hindi Feature Films Produced & Censored In India, As Mentioned In Schedule ‘C’ Annexed With The ‘Agreement Of 2 M/S Asia Today Ltd. Vs Asst. Dit (Int. Taxation)-2(2)

permanent establishment and the royalty is attributable to such PE, it will be taxed under Article 7 as business profits. Since the appellant does not have a PE in India, the royalty received by the appellant is not taxable in India. Since the income of the appellant (royalty) is held not taxable in India, other arguments of the appellant

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

disallowance of Rs. 2,07,41,569/- made u/s. 40(a) by the Assessing Officer on account of payments made to MasterCard International Incorporated, USA and Visa International Service Association, USA. b) It is respectfully submitted that the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that- MasterCard and Visa International have no permanent establishment

MUNCHENER RUCKVERSICHERUNGS -GESELLSCHAFT AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT IN MUNCHEN ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT)-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

permanent establishment including executive and general administrative expenses is to be allowed as a deduction. The ld AR submitted that the fiction created under article 7(2) is for the limited purpose of treating the PE as a separate enterprise for determining its profits and therefore even a payment made to the head office would have to be allowed

MUNCHENER RUCKVERSICHERUNGS-GESELLSCHAFT AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT IN MUNCHEN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT)-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

permanent establishment including executive and general administrative expenses is to be allowed as a deduction. The ld AR submitted that the fiction created under article 7(2) is for the limited purpose of treating the PE as a separate enterprise for determining its profits and therefore even a payment made to the head office would have to be allowed

ACIT(IT)-3(2)(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUNCHENER RUCKVERSICHERUNGS-GESELLSCHAFT AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT IN MUNCHEN, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

permanent establishment including executive and general administrative expenses is to be allowed as a deduction. The ld AR submitted that the fiction created under article 7(2) is for the limited purpose of treating the PE as a separate enterprise for determining its profits and therefore even a payment made to the head office would have to be allowed

ACIT(IT)-3(2)(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUNCHENER RUCKVERSICHERUNGS-GESELLSCHAFT AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT IN MUNCHEN, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

permanent establishment including executive and general administrative expenses is to be allowed as a deduction. The ld AR submitted that the fiction created under article 7(2) is for the limited purpose of treating the PE as a separate enterprise for determining its profits and therefore even a payment made to the head office would have to be allowed