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

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 9(1)(vi), the revenue went further to hold that, since assessee has provided technical, managerial and consultancy services to SCB, therefore, it also falls in the nature of 'FTS' and for coming to this conclusion, certain clauses in the Cocteau agreement has been referred to. 19. First of all, we will deal with the issue whether the said

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

section 9(1)(vi), the revenue went further to hold that, since assessee has provided technical, managerial and consultancy services to SCB, therefore, it also falls in the nature of 'FTS' and for coming to this conclusion, certain clauses in the Cocteau agreement has been referred to. 19. First of all, we will deal with the issue whether the said

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

section 9(1)(vi), the revenue went further to hold that, since assessee has provided technical, managerial and consultancy services to SCB, therefore, it also falls in the nature of 'FTS' and for coming to this conclusion, certain clauses in the Cocteau agreement has been referred to. 19. First of all, we will deal with the issue whether the said

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

House Hunghom, Kowloon Ballard Pier Hongkong Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai Address: M/s. Satellite Television Asian Region Ltd., C/o. DSK Legal 4th Floor, Express Towers Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Deputy Director of Vs. M/s. Satellite Television Asian Income-Tax (International Region Ltd., Taxation)-2(1) Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 001 (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Porus Kaka

SHELL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL BV,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

House, Ballard Estate, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi Road, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 011 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AAICS9091A Assessee by : Niraj Sheth, AR Revenue by : Samuel Darse, DR Date of hearing: 16 -11-2017 Date of pronouncement : 16-11-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: These two appeals by the Assessee are arising

SHELL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL BV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

House, Ballard Estate, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi Road, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 011 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AAICS9091A Assessee by : Niraj Sheth, AR Revenue by : Samuel Darse, DR Date of hearing: 16 -11-2017 Date of pronouncement : 16-11-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: These two appeals by the Assessee are arising

ATOS INFORMATON TECHNOLOGY HK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in the manner indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

property or information) finds place in clause (i), (ii) (iii), (iv) and (v) only and not in clause (iva) of Explanation 2 of Section 9. Therefore, one can reasonably interpret that the Explanation 5 was sought to be introduced to explain clauses (i) to (v) and not clause (iva).  Explanation 5 has been inserted with retrospective effect from June 1

ATOS INFORMATON TECHNOLOGY HK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in the manner indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

property or information) finds place in clause (i), (ii) (iii), (iv) and (v) only and not in clause (iva) of Explanation 2 of Section 9. Therefore, one can reasonably interpret that the Explanation 5 was sought to be introduced to explain clauses (i) to (v) and not clause (iva).  Explanation 5 has been inserted with retrospective effect from June 1

ATOS INFORMATON TECHNOLOGY HK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in the manner indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

property or information) finds place in clause (i), (ii) (iii), (iv) and (v) only and not in clause (iva) of Explanation 2 of Section 9. Therefore, one can reasonably interpret that the Explanation 5 was sought to be introduced to explain clauses (i) to (v) and not clause (iva).  Explanation 5 has been inserted with retrospective effect from June 1

ATOS INFORMATON TECHNOLOGY HK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in the manner indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

property or information) finds place in clause (i), (ii) (iii), (iv) and (v) only and not in clause (iva) of Explanation 2 of Section 9. Therefore, one can reasonably interpret that the Explanation 5 was sought to be introduced to explain clauses (i) to (v) and not clause (iva).  Explanation 5 has been inserted with retrospective effect from June 1

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

vi) inserted by Finance Act, 2012, will not affect the corresponding article of the DTAA and the interpretation thereunder unless such change is incorporated into the DTAA itself. The learned Authorised Representative referring to Article–7(1) of the DTAA submitted that the word “through” appears only in the first sentence and not in the second sentence which specifies

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

vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9: (B) "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9: (ia) thirty per cent of any sum payable to a resident, on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVIIB and such tax has not been deducted

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).

vi) of subsection (1) of section 9: (B) "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9: (ia) thirty per cent of any sum payable to a resident, on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVIIB and such tax has not been deducted

THE DY. DIT (IT) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. ATL MEDIA LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO EXPAND FAST HOLDINGS LTD.), MUMBAI

House, Cyber City, Ebene, Mauritius. PAN: AAGCA-5649-G. ....... प्रतिवादी/Respondent 2 ITA NO.4479/MUM/2006 (Α.Υ. 2002-03) ΙΤΑ ΝΟ.3149/MUM/2007 (Α.Υ. 2003-04) ITA NO.4631/MUM/2006 (Α.Υ. 2002-03) ITA NO.3880/MUM/2007 (Α.Υ. 2003-04) Assessee by: Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate with Shri Jai Bhansali Revenue by : Shri Anil Sant सुनवाई की तिथि / Date of hearing : 05/10/2023 घोषणा

RACKSPACE, US INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as under Article 12(3)(b) of Indo-US DTAA, by observing as under: - “3.4 Discussion and directions of DRP: 3.4.1 We have perused the submissions made by appellant as above. The case of the appellant primarily hinges upon the assumption that since the agreement is for service

RASKSPACE US INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as under Article 12(3)(b) of Indo-US DTAA, by observing as under: - “3.4 Discussion and directions of DRP: 3.4.1 We have perused the submissions made by appellant as above. The case of the appellant primarily hinges upon the assumption that since the agreement is for service

RACKSPACE, US INC.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as under Article 12(3)(b) of Indo-US DTAA, by observing as under: - “3.4 Discussion and directions of DRP: 3.4.1 We have perused the submissions made by appellant as above. The case of the appellant primarily hinges upon the assumption that since the agreement is for service

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

section 9(1)(vi), the revenue went further to hold that, since assessee has provided technical, managerial and consultancy services to SCB, therefore, it also falls in the nature of „FTS‟ and for coming to this conclusion, certain clauses in the Cocteau agreement has been referred to. 19. First of all, we will deal with the issue whether the said

VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 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 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

vi) As already mentioned above, the reason for this is imbedded in, and intrinsic to, the charging section for the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 4 of the Act provides a charge of income-tax for 'total income' of a person. Thus, section 4 has a direct connect with section 5 of the Act which provides for the scope