Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 116 (1.30 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax, Meerut And ... vs Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd on 18 May, 2007

Daimlerchrysler Ag, Mumbai vs Assessee on 27 March, 2008

"11. After hearing both the sides, we find force in assessee's arguments. The Assessee merely sells the raw materials / CKD units to DCIL. It is DCIL which carries out further activity of assembling the same and selling the finished cars. There are no further activities carried out by the Appellant in India in this connection. This transaction ends with the Appellant selling the raw materials / CKD. No income from such sale accrues or arises to the Assessee in India. In other words no part of such profits accrue from or can be attributed to any activities of the assessee or his agent in India. The Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Hyundai Industries Ltd (291 ITR 482) has held that in the case of an agreement with a South Korean Company for fabrication and installation of Oil exploration platform, the PE attributable to installation and commissioning came into existence only after the supply of the equipment. Therefore, profits from supply of the platform did not accrue in India. Similarly in the case of Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Ind.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Abn Amro Bank vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 23 December, 2010

The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr vs Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd & Ors reported in 291 ITR Pg 482 specifically stated the principles on which profits of a company had to be apportioned between the head office and the permanent establishment in India for the purpose of taxation. Therefore on the basis of the above decisions and the international agreement the permanent establishment of the foreign company in India is to be treated as if it were an assessee. The permanent establishment is to be taken as an assessee and the foreign company or the head office is not to be treated as such assessee and the income to be computed accordingly on the above principles of proportionality, in as much as, the above agreement is applied with the Act the foreign company cannot be an assessee. Its assessable income is the assessable income of the branch and the other income or expense which it receives or makes is to be computed separately as attributable to the foreign company, not being such permanent establishment.
Calcutta High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - I P Mukerji - Full Document

Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd., Noida vs Dcit (International Taxation), New ... on 14 July, 2017

47. As noticed earlier, there seems to be no dispute that the title to the equipment passed in favour of Reliance overseas. However, the AO, CIT (A) and ITAT did not consider the same to be relevant as according to them, the equipment continued to be in the possession of the "Nortel Group' till its final acceptance by Reliance. In our view, even if it is accepted that the equipment supplied overseas continued to be in possession of Nortel India till the final acceptance by Reliance, the same would not imply that the Assessee's income from supply of equipment could be taxed under the Act. Clause (a) of Explanation 1 to Section 9(l)(i) of the Act postulates the principle of apportionment and only such income that can be ~ reasonably attributed to operations in India would be chargeable to tax under the Act. The position in Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries (supra) was also similar. There too, the equipments were supplied overseas and the contractor continued to retain control of equipment and material till the provisional acceptance of the work or the termination of the contract.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 88 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next