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

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

SHINHAN BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

permanent establishment in India. It was noted that this amount is not reflected in its Indian books of accounts, and, as such, the related expenditure is not incurred by the Indian PE of the assessee company. The Assessing Officer was thus of the view that this deduction can not be allowed in the computation of the profits

SHINHAN BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

permanent establishment in India. It was noted that this amount is not reflected in its Indian books of accounts, and, as such, the related expenditure is not incurred by the Indian PE of the assessee company. The Assessing Officer was thus of the view that this deduction can not be allowed in the computation of the profits

SHINHAN BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

permanent establishment (PE, in short) to its head office, i.e General Enterprises (GE, in short), on the funds borrowed by the PE from its GE. So far as the claim for this deduction (referred to as PE-GE interest, in short) is concerned, the Assessing Officer proposed to disallow

SHINHAN BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

permanent establishment (PE, in short) to its head office, i.e General Enterprises (GE, in short), on the funds borrowed by the PE from its GE. So far as the claim for this deduction (referred to as PE-GE interest, in short) is concerned, the Assessing Officer proposed to disallow

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 Establishment thus are required to be determined as if it is dealing wholly independently with the enterprise of which it is a part and what would be allowable as deduction in such case is the cost of funds to the PE borrowed from GE and not the cost of funds to GE which is totally irrelevant. 88. Keeping

ABU-DHABI COMMERICAL BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), 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 Establishment thus are required to be determined as if it is dealing wholly independently with the enterprise of which it is a part and what would be allowable as deduction in such case is the cost of funds to the PE borrowed from GE and not the cost of funds to GE which is totally irrelevant. 88. Keeping

ILJIN ELECTRIC CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accoutant Member & Shri Saktijit Dey

Permanent Establishment / alleged business connection in India. 2.2 The learned AO I DRP erred in disregarding the submissions made and the grounds of( objections raised by the appellant. Ground No. 3: Disallowance of expenditure in relation to contract with Transmission Corporation in India. 3.1 The learned AO 8 DRP erred in law and facts in disallowing

GENERAL MOTORS OVERSEAS CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y : 2004-05 :

permanent establishment.” There is no dispute to the legal proposition that Article 7 speaks of profits and not gross receipts. The Revenue cannot misinterpret Article 7 to substitute the word “receipts” for the words “profits”. Profit would always be net of all legitimate expenditure incurred by an enterprise. The Revenue has invoked Article 7.5 for disallowing

GENERAL MOTORS OVERSEAS CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. DDIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y : 2004-05 :

permanent establishment.” There is no dispute to the legal proposition that Article 7 speaks of profits and not gross receipts. The Revenue cannot misinterpret Article 7 to substitute the word “receipts” for the words “profits”. Profit would always be net of all legitimate expenditure incurred by an enterprise. The Revenue has invoked Article 7.5 for disallowing

GENERAL MOTORS OVERSEAS CORPORATION vs. ACIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y : 2004-05 :

permanent establishment.” There is no dispute to the legal proposition that Article 7 speaks of profits and not gross receipts. The Revenue cannot misinterpret Article 7 to substitute the word “receipts” for the words “profits”. Profit would always be net of all legitimate expenditure incurred by an enterprise. The Revenue has invoked Article 7.5 for disallowing

GENERAL MOTORS OVERSEAS CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. DDIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y : 2004-05 :

permanent establishment.” There is no dispute to the legal proposition that Article 7 speaks of profits and not gross receipts. The Revenue cannot misinterpret Article 7 to substitute the word “receipts” for the words “profits”. Profit would always be net of all legitimate expenditure incurred by an enterprise. The Revenue has invoked Article 7.5 for disallowing

BANK OF AMERICA N.A,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bank Of America National Commissioner Of Income Tax Association, (International Taxation), Range-1, Ground Floor, A Wing, One Vs. 3Rd Floor, Room No. 9, Mittal Court Bkc, G Block, Bandra Kurla ‘B’ Wing, Nariman Point, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacb 1537 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Vasanti Patel Revenue By : Mr. Sunil K. Jha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2022

permanent establishment of the assessee in India, has made payments of ia, has made payments of ₹ 1,86,06,181/ 181/- as interest to the head office/overseas branches but the to the head office/overseas branches but the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer did not make any query for taxing of not make any query for taxing of said interest receipt

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

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

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