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 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Comissioner Of Income Tax (It) - 3 vs M/S. Linklaters (Formerly Linklaters ... on 27 February, 2019

Author: M.S.Sanklecha

Bench: Akil Kureshi, M.S.Sanklecha

                                                                         (1) itxa-1859.16&anr.doc


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

                             NCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1859 OF 2016

Commissioner of Income Tax (IT)-3, Mumbai                        : Appellant.
        versus
M/s. Linklaters (Formerly Linklaters & Paines)                   : Respondent.

                                             WITH
                            INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1860 OF 2016

Commissioner of Income Tax (IT)-3, Mumbai                      : Appellant.
        versus
M/s. Linklaters (Formerly Linklaters & Paines)                 : Respondent.
                                           ...................
Mr. Tejveer Singh for the Appellant
Mr. Anay Banhatti a/w Ms. Virangana Wadhawan i/by Economic Laws Practice for the
Respondent.
                                           ...................

                           CORAM        : AKIL KURESHI &
                                           M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ.
                            DATE       :   FEBRUARY 27, 2019.

P.C.:


1              Heard.

2              Appeal are admitted for consideration of the following substantial

questions of law :-


(i) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in holding that the portion of income which was related to the services performed in India, was taxable in India, without appreciating the 'Force of Attraction' principle contained in Article 7 of India-UK DTAA,?

lgc 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 00:47:01 ::: (1) itxa-1859.16&anr.doc 3 We notice that the Revenue has suggested one more question in these Appeals which reads thus :-

(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is erred in holding that the interest u/s 234B is not leviable in this case without taking into consideration the existence of PE in India and thus liable to pay advance tax?"

4 Learned Counsel Mr. Anay Banhatti waives notice on behalf of the Respondent.
5 The learned counsel for the Revenue fairly stated that such an issue is already decided by this Court in the case of DIT Mumbai vs. M/s. NGC Network Asia LLC, 313 ITR 187.
6 The Registry is directed to communicate copy of this order to the Tribunal. This would enable the Tribunal to keep papers and the proceedings relating to the present appeal available, to be produced when sought for by the Court.




[ M.S.SANKLECHA,J.]                                              [ AKIL KURESHI, J ]




lgc                                                                                        2 of 2




        ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019                       ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 00:47:01 :::