Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-2 vs M/S. Clifford Chance on 4 March, 2019

Author: M.S.Sanklecha

Bench: Akil Kureshi, M.S.Sanklecha

Priya Soparkar                          1               49 itxa 79-17 and ors-o


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION


                    INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.79 OF 2017
                                WITH
                   INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.85 OF 2017
                                WITH
                   INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.192 OF 2017
                                WITH
                   INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.201 OF 2017
                                WITH
                   INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.369 OF 2017
                                WITH
                   INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.390 OF 2017

Commissioner of Income Tax (IT)-2           ... Appellant
           V/s.
M/s Clifford Chance                         ... Respondent
                                  ---
Mr.Tejveer Singh for the Appellant.
Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel with Ms.Manorama Mohanty
with Ms.Sadhana Datar i/by M/s S.K.Srivastav & Co. for the
Respondent.
                           ---

                           CORAM : AKIL KURESHI AND
                                   M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ.

DATE : MARCH 04, 2019.

P.C.:-

1. Appeals are admitted for consideration of following substantial questions of law:
"(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of ::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 07:32:54 ::: Priya Soparkar 2 49 itxa 79-17 and ors-o the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the assessee partnership firm, was not liable to tax in India with respect to professional fees earned for work done in India, in terms of Article 15 of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement between UK and India ("the Treaty")
(b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT has failed to appreciate the fact that the AO had considered the income of the assessee to be taxable under Section 9(1)(i) of the Act which included any income attributable to the business of a non-

resident even for the services rendered outside India?

(c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT has erred in holding that the attribution of profits for services rendered outside India for contracts having projects in India was not attributable to the profits of the PE as per Article 7(1) of the India-UK DTAA?"

2. To be heard with Income Tax Appeal No.469 of 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent waived notice.
4. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Tribunal. This would enable the Tribunal to keep the papers and proceedings relating to these appeals available, to be produced when sought for by the Court. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.) ....
::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 07:32:54 :::