WORLD SPORT GROUP (MAURITIUS) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

permanent establishment ('PE') of the Appellant and that the Appellant has dependant agent PE in India under the India-Mauritius tax treaty ("tax treaty") by placing reliance on certain unsubstantiated assumptions, surmises and conjectures. Without prejudice to the no PE claim of the Appellant, the AO/Hon'ble DRP have also erred in not considering the fact that as per Article

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION (CANADA) ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (IT), RANGE 2 (2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly Ground No. 3 to 7 are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

permanent establishment in the other Contracting State merely because it carries on business International Air Transport Association (Canada) in that other State through a broker, general commission agent, or any other agent of an independent status, provided that such persons are acting in the ordinary course of their business. However, when the activities of such an agent are devoted wholly

INTERNATIONAL AIR ASSOCIATION (CANADA),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) RANGE 2 (2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly Ground No. 3 to 7 are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

permanent establishment in the other Contracting State merely because it carries on business International Air Transport Association (Canada) in that other State through a broker, general commission agent, or any other agent of an independent status, provided that such persons are acting in the ordinary course of their business. However, when the activities of such an agent are devoted wholly

INTERNATINAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION (CANADA),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly Ground No. 3 to 7 are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

permanent establishment in the other Contracting State merely because it carries on business International Air Transport Association (Canada) in that other State through a broker, general commission agent, or any other agent of an independent status, provided that such persons are acting in the ordinary course of their business. However, when the activities of such an agent are devoted wholly

JCIT (IT) (OSD)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ARUN RANGACHARI, MUMBAI

Permanent Establishment to carry out\nhis business and also carrying out the business for his wholly\nowned business concern.\n8.6 In view of the above, M/s Thurles International Ltd owned\n100% by Sh. Arun Rangachari and the consultancy work\nsupposedly in the name of the assessee company is carried out\nfrom the fixed place of market and accordingly, the said

GEMOLOGICAL RESEARCH (THAILAND) CO. LTD. ,THAILAND vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrigemological Research V/S. Acit(International (Thailand) Co. Ltd. बनाम Taxation) 2(3)(2), Mumbai 933, Mitrotown Ofce 17Th Floor, Air India Tower, 19Th Floor, Unit Building, Nariman Point, 1903-1910, Rama Iv Road, Mumbai-400021 Wang Mai Pathum, Bangkok, Thailand-10330 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg7850L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

reassessment proceedings. Ld. AR has submitted that this ground is not being pressed at this point of time. Accordingly, this ground is being left open. 6. Ground No. 2, 3 & 4 : Ground No. 2 relates to holding that the assessee has a permanent establishment

SKY GEM,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrigemological Research V/S. Acit(International (Thailand) Co. Ltd. बनाम Taxation) 2(3)(2), Mumbai 933, Mitrotown Ofce 17Th Floor, Air India Tower, 19Th Floor, Unit Building, Nariman Point, 1903-1910, Rama Iv Road, Mumbai-400021 Wang Mai Pathum, Bangkok, Thailand-10330 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg7850L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

reassessment proceedings. Ld. AR has submitted that this ground is not being pressed at this point of time. Accordingly, this ground is being left open. 6. Ground No. 2, 3 & 4 : Ground No. 2 relates to holding that the assessee has a permanent establishment

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC.,CALIFORNIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrigemological Institute Of V/S. Acit (International बनाम America Inc. Taxation)-2(3)(2), Mumbai 5345, The Robert Mouawad 17Th Floor, Air India Campus, Armada Drive, Building, Nariman Point, Carlsbad, California Mumbai-400021 Zip-092008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg7962K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Permanent Establishment' ("PE") in India. 3:2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, it has no PE in India and the stand taken by the Assessing Officer/the Dispute Resolution Panel in this connection is erroneous, misconceived and not in accordance with law. 3:3 The Appellant submits

SKY GEM,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrigemological Institute Of V/S. Acit (International बनाम America Inc. Taxation)-2(3)(2), Mumbai 5345, The Robert Mouawad 17Th Floor, Air India Campus, Armada Drive, Building, Nariman Point, Carlsbad, California Mumbai-400021 Zip-092008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg7962K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Permanent Establishment' ("PE") in India. 3:2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, it has no PE in India and the stand taken by the Assessing Officer/the Dispute Resolution Panel in this connection is erroneous, misconceived and not in accordance with law. 3:3 The Appellant submits

THE UK TRADE DESK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (INT.TAX)-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, various sub grounds of ground no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) The Uk Trade Desk Ltd. Acit (International Taxation-4(3)(1), 10Th Floor, 1 Bartholomew Close, Vs Mumbai, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, London, United Kingdom. [Pan No. Aahct6320Q] Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

permanent establishment and its Indian agent had been paid / remunerated at arm’s length price, nothing further could be taxed in the hands of assessee. We also find that Hon’ble Apex Court in Honda Motors Co. Ltd. vs ADIT (supra) while quashing the notice under section 147 held that where notice to the assessee for reassessment

VIJAYAKUMAR KANAIYALAL MATTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 26 (3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhvk-Vk-La- 52@Eaqcbz@2020 ¼Fu-Oa- 2013&14½ Vk-Vk-La- 53@Eaqcbz@2020 ¼Fu-Oa- 2014&15½ Vijaykumar Kanaiyalal Matta 8/B/104, 10Th Floor, S. S. Nagar, Sion Koliwada, Sion Mumbai-400 037 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aropm6060D Cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer – 26(3) (4) Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, B. K. C. Bandra (E), ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 051

reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee are in the information received from Joint DIT (Investigation), Mumbai. As per the information received, the assessee has paid on money amounting to Rs.47 lakhs in cash to Vipul Mangal, Partner of M/s Argent Constructions for purchase of flat in Silver Arch project developed by M/s Argent Constructions. The details of alleged

VIJAYAKUMAR KANAIYALAL MATTA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 26 (3)(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhvk-Vk-La- 52@Eaqcbz@2020 ¼Fu-Oa- 2013&14½ Vk-Vk-La- 53@Eaqcbz@2020 ¼Fu-Oa- 2014&15½ Vijaykumar Kanaiyalal Matta 8/B/104, 10Th Floor, S. S. Nagar, Sion Koliwada, Sion Mumbai-400 037 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aropm6060D Cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer – 26(3) (4) Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, B. K. C. Bandra (E), ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 051

reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee are in the information received from Joint DIT (Investigation), Mumbai. As per the information received, the assessee has paid on money amounting to Rs.47 lakhs in cash to Vipul Mangal, Partner of M/s Argent Constructions for purchase of flat in Silver Arch project developed by M/s Argent Constructions. The details of alleged

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX. CIRCLE- LTU -2, , MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

permanent establishment also, the same was reduced from taxable Income." From the above submissions it can be clearly concluded exclusion of foreign income has been examined by the then Ld. AO and after having been satisfied with the submissions the claim had been allowed. 6. The Ld. AR stated that it has not failed to make return

MAERSK LOGISTICS & SERVICES INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.909 & 937/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2020-21)

reassessment order is bad in law and void ab initio being contrary to the provisions of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in directing the learned AO to treat, and the learned AO erred in treating, the Network

MAERSK LOGISTICS & SERVICES INTERNATIONAL B.V,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.909 & 937/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2020-21)

reassessment order is bad in law and void ab initio being contrary to the provisions of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in directing the learned AO to treat, and the learned AO erred in treating, the Network

OWENS CORNING INSULATING SYSTEMS CANADA LP,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Establishment (“Service PE”) in India during the year under consideration on the basis that the seconded employee was sent to India to manage the affairs of Owens Corning India Private Ltd and for all practical purposes, the employee remain a permanent employee of the assessee, even though stationed in India. The assessee filed detailed objections before the learned DRP against

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Permanent Establishment of DZ Bank AG in India. In further appellate proceedings, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal held the aforesaid two receipts to be taxable under Article 11 of the India-Germany DTAA at the rate of 10%. Therefore, we agree with the findings of the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, that the penalty levied is entirely

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Permanent Establishment of DZ Bank AG in India. In further appellate proceedings, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal held the aforesaid two receipts to be taxable under Article 11 of the India-Germany DTAA at the rate of 10%. Therefore, we agree with the findings of the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, that the penalty levied is entirely