VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

VI-A of the Act\namounting to Rs.1060,74,15,182/- and book profit u/s.115JB of the Act at Rs.\n127,32,60,973/- dated 29.03.2013. The assessee had also claimed TDS credit of Rs.\n173,76,67,734/- in the revised return as against the claim of Rs.156,89,92,736/- in its\noriginal return. Further, the assessee

DCIT (IT)-4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2866/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit(It)-4(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Reliance Jio Room No. 1712, 17Th Floor, Infocomm Ltd Vs. Air India Building, Nariman 3Rd Floor, Maker Point, Mumbai-400021. Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci6363G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nimesh Vora/Ms. Moksha Moksha Mehta Revenue By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/02/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Mumbai Dated 08.09.2022 For The Ay 2019-20. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Are As Under: - A. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That Tax Was Not Required To Be Deducted At Source On The Payment Made By The Assessee To Reliance Jio Infocomm Uk (Rjiuk) For Availing Bandwidth Services As It Did Not Amount To Income Of The Payee By Way Of Royalty U/S 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act, 1961 Read With Article 13 Of The India-Uk Dtaa. B. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld, Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That Tax Was Not Required To Be Deducted At Source On The Payment Made By The Assessee To Reliance Jio Infocomm Uk (Rjiuk) For Availing Bandwidth Services As It Did Not Amount To Income Of The Payee

Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12(3) of the DTAA between India and Singapore. According to the Ld. AR, no amendment in the Act, whether retrospective or prospective can be read in a manner so as to extend its operation to the terms of an international instrument effected between two Sovereign States prior to such

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) & 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Per contra, the Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue supported the order of the lower authorities and filed detailed written submissions distinguishing the appellate order/s passed for the earlier years. 10. We have heard both the parties and gone through the written submissions filed by them

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) & 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Per contra, the Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue supported the order of the lower authorities and filed detailed written submissions distinguishing the appellate order/s passed for the earlier years. 10. We have heard both the parties and gone through the written submissions filed by them

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) & 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Per contra, the Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue supported the order of the lower authorities and filed detailed written submissions distinguishing the appellate order/s passed for the earlier years. 10. We have heard both the parties and gone through the written submissions filed by them

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

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

68 taxmann.com 36 (Mum- Tri) • DDIT v. Reliance Industries Limited [2016] 69 taxmann.com 311 (Mum- Tri) • Aspect Software Inc. v. ADIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 36 (Del-Tri) • Allianz SE v. ADIT [2012] 21 taxmann.com 62 (Pune

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

68 taxmann.com 36 (Mum- Tri) • DDIT v. Reliance Industries Limited [2016] 69 taxmann.com 311 (Mum- Tri) • Aspect Software Inc. v. ADIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 36 (Del-Tri) • Allianz SE v. ADIT [2012] 21 taxmann.com 62 (Pune

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

section 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976. The assessee‟s submission in detail as to why the provision of such services cannot be treated as „royalty‟ or „FTS‟ has been incorporated by the Assessing Officer from pages 3 to 17 of assessment order. However, the ld. Assessing Officer rejected the entire contention

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

section 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976. The assessee‟s submission in detail as to why the provision of such services cannot be treated as „royalty‟ or „FTS‟ has been incorporated by the Assessing Officer from pages 3 to 17 of assessment order. However, the ld. Assessing Officer rejected the entire contention

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

section 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976. The assessee‟s submission in detail as to why the provision of such services cannot be treated as „royalty‟ or „FTS‟ has been incorporated by the Assessing Officer from pages 3 to 17 of assessment order. However, the ld. Assessing Officer rejected the entire contention

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

section 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976. The assessee‟s submission in detail as to why the provision of such services cannot be treated as „royalty‟ or „FTS‟ has been incorporated by the Assessing Officer from pages 3 to 17 of assessment order. However, the ld. Assessing Officer rejected the entire contention

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

68,12,549 USD one million two hundred fifty nine thousand four hundred 5. Total payable forty five only And Rupees five crore sixty eight lakh twelve thousand five hundred forty nine only 21. Schedule–1(A) specified the goods / equipment to be supplied from abroad; Schedule–1(B) specified the goods / equipments to be supplied from employer‟s country

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).

68,19,755.00 13. 75% 2009-10 16,93,05,845.00 1,05,30,824.00 6.22% 2010-11 6,00,73,432.00 12,01,469.00 2%. The assessee had duly submitted copies of agency agreement/contract and exclusivity agreement pertaining to 4 major overseas agents based in USA & Europe as well copies of ledger account of these agents. The four foreign

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

1)(vi), there is no change or amendment in the term royalty as such. Therefore, the definition of term royalty remained unchanged despite insertion of Explanation 6 by Finance Act 2012, Even otherwise the term "Royalty" is defined in the DTAA, therefore, any amendment in the definition of "Royalty" affecting adversely to an assesses covered by the DTAA would

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

9(i)(vi) of the Act vide Finance Act, 2012 cannot be read into the India- UK DAA. The impugned issue is also covered by the decisions (supra) of the Delhi High Court in the case of Intelsat Corporation and Asia Satellite Telecommunication Co. Ltd. The case of the assessee also finds support by the decision of the Delhi High

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

9(i)(vi) of the Act vide Finance Act, 2012 cannot be read into the India- UK DAA. The impugned issue is also covered by the decisions (supra) of the Delhi High Court in the case of Intelsat Corporation and Asia Satellite Telecommunication Co. Ltd. The case of the assessee also finds support by the decision of the Delhi High

AGFA HEALTHCARE NV,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K Pradhan

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Accordingly, he concluded that the amount received from ICS is taxable as royalty both under the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as India–Belgium DTAA and added back the amount of ` 2,01,63,957. Being aggrieved of such addition made in the draft assessment order, the assessee raised objections before