Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (1.34 seconds)
Documents citing Galileo International Inc. vs Dcit on 30 November, 2007

Sabre Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit (It) 1(1)(1), Mumbai on 16 February, 2018

Before parting, we may herein observe that we are not persuaded to accept the contention of the ld. D.R that the adhoc adoption of 15% of the gross receipts of the assessee as its income attributable to India operations as observed by the Tribunal in the case of Galileo International Inc. Vs. DCIT (2009)116 ITD 1 (Del) for A.Ys 1995-96 to 1998-99, which thereafter had been approved by the High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Galileo International Inc. (2011) (336 ITR 264)(Del) would not be P a g e | 32 Sabre Asia Pacific Lte Ltd. Vs. DCIT-A.Y. 205-06 to 2011-12 ITA No. 4882/Mum/2015, ITA No. 7367/Mum/2010, ITA No. 8479/Mum/2011, ITA No.7400/Mum/2012,ITA No. 2120/Mum/2014, ITA No. 1704/Mum/2015 and ITA No.486/Mum/2016 Addl.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 38 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Sabre Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit (It) 1(1)(1), Mumbai on 17 February, 2020

Before parting, we may herein observe that we are not persuaded to accept the contention of the ld. D.R that the adhoc adoption of 15% of the gross receipts of the assessee as its income attributable to India operations as observed by the Tribunal in the case of Galileo International Inc. Vs. DCIT (2009)116 ITD 1 (Del) for A.Ys 1995-96 to 1998-99, which thereafter had been approved by the High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Galileo International Inc. (2011) (336 ITR 264)(Del) would not be applicable to the case of the assessee for the year under consideration, viz. A.Y 2005-06, for the reason that the adjudication in the aforesaid cases was in respect of the years falling within the sweep of the era of pre-Transfer pricing provisions, which alongwith the related rules were notified in India with effect from 01.04.2002, vide the Finance Act, 2001. We are of the considered view that not only the ld. D.R by raising the aforesaid contention had tried to build up a new case before us which is not permissible in the eyes of law, but rather, while raising the aforesaid contention had also lost sight of the fact that the aforesaid view as regards adoption of 15% of the gross receipts of the assessee as its income attributable to India operations was also taken by the Tribunal in the assesses own case for A.Ys 2002-03 to 2004-05, which pertained to the period subsequent to the introduction of the Transfer pricing provisions.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Travelport L.P. Usa, New Delhi vs Assessee on 23 November, 2015

It is also to be noted that the entire payment made by appellant to Interglobe has been allowed as expenses while computing total income of the appellant. In such a situation in view of Circular No. 23 of 23rd July, 1969 no income can be further charged to tax in India. As rightly contended by Shri Vyas the Circular equally applies to the sale of goods as well as rendering of services. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken judicial note of said Circular in the case of Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. (supra) and have held that once associated enterprise which is considered as PE of the non-resident assessee is remunerated at arm's length, nothing further would be left to be attributed to the PE of the non-resident. We, therefore, hold that in view of the above facts, no income is taxable in India.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sabre Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (Earlier ... vs Dcit (It) 1(1)(1), Mumbai on 8 July, 2020

Before parting, we may herein observe that we are not persuaded to accept the contention of the ld. D.R that the adhoc adoption of 15% of the gross receipts of the assessee as its income attributable to India operations as observed by the Tribunal in the case of Galileo International Inc. Vs. DCIT (2009)116 ITD 1 (Del) for A.Ys 1995-96 to 1998-99, which thereafter had been approved by the High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Galileo International Inc. (2011) (336 ITR 264)(Del) would not be applicable to the case of the assessee for the year under consideration, viz. A.Y 2005-06, for the reason that the adjudication in the aforesaid cases was in respect of the years falling within the sweep of the era of pre-Transfer pricing provisions, which alongwith the related rules were notified in India with effect from 01.04.2002, vide the Finance Act, 2001. We are of the considered view that not only the ld. D.R by raising the aforesaid contention had tried to build up a new case before us which is not permissible in the eyes of law, but rather, while raising the aforesaid contention had also lost sight of the fact that the aforesaid view as regards adoption of 15% of the gross receipts of the assessee as its income attributable to India operations was also taken by the Tribunal in the assesses own case for A.Ys 2002-03 to 2004-05, which pertained to the period subsequent to the introduction of the Transfer pricing provisions.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sabre Inc, New Delhi vs Dcit (International Taxation), New ... on 9 February, 2024

32. Now with regard to the alleged Agency PE, as we have concluded that the business model post 2005 does not have an intermediary in the form of NMD and as in the case of Galileo International Inc. (supra) there was active intermediary, as Interglobe, so there is no question of existence of Agency PE. In case of Galileo International Inc. (supra), the terms of agreement provided that Galileo International had appointed Interglobe as a sole and exclusive distributor of Galileo International CRS Services for the Indian market and in those circumstances, the Tribunal had held that Interglobe was authorized to enter into contract with the subscribers in terms of authority generated under the distribution agreement. This authorization to bind Galileo gave an agent status to Interglobe. In the case in hand, there is no such intermediary. Further, there is no exclusiveness of the entities like American Express who have entered into global subscriber agreements. They are unrelated parties acting in their ordinary course of business with no exclusiveness to each other. Ld. DRP has appreciated this aspect by holding that the travel agents in India are not exclusive to the assessee while considering the question of fixed place PE but that somehow goes against the concept of Agency PE and for that reasons, nothing specific was held with regard to the Agency PE by DRP. This itself was sufficient to conclude that there was no entity which was habitually procuring contracts for the assessee or to bind the assessee for the contracts to be entered by that entity independently. Thus, we are inclined to hold there was no Agency PE, also.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - G S Pannu - Full Document

Sabre Glbl Inc., New Delhi vs Dcit (International Taxation), New ... on 9 February, 2024

32. Now with regard to the alleged Agency PE, as we have concluded that the business model post 2005 does not have an intermediary in the form of NMD and as in the case of Galileo International Inc. (supra) there was active intermediary, as Interglobe, so there is no question of existence of Agency PE. In case of Galileo International Inc. (supra), the terms of agreement provided that Galileo International had appointed Interglobe as a sole and exclusive distributor of Galileo International CRS Services for the Indian market and in those circumstances, the Tribunal had held that Interglobe was authorized to enter into contract with the subscribers in terms of authority generated under the distribution agreement. This authorization to bind Galileo gave an agent status to Interglobe. In the case in hand, there is no such intermediary. Further, there is no exclusiveness of the entities like American Express who have entered into global subscriber agreements. They are unrelated parties acting in their ordinary course of business with no exclusiveness to each other. Ld. DRP has appreciated this aspect by holding that the travel agents in India are not exclusive to the assessee while considering the question of fixed place PE but that somehow goes against the concept of Agency PE and for that reasons, nothing specific was held with regard to the Agency PE by DRP. This itself was sufficient to conclude that there was no entity which was habitually procuring contracts for the assessee or to bind the assessee for the contracts to be entered by that entity independently. Thus, we are inclined to hold there was no Agency PE, also.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - G S Pannu - Full Document

Sabre Glbl Inc., New Delhi vs Dcit (International Taxation), ... on 9 February, 2024

32. Now with regard to the alleged Agency PE, as we have concluded that the business model post 2005 does not have an intermediary in the form of NMD and as in the case of Galileo International Inc. (supra) there was active intermediary, as Interglobe, so there is no question of existence of Agency PE. In case of Galileo International Inc. (supra), the terms of agreement provided that Galileo International had appointed Interglobe as a sole and exclusive distributor of Galileo International CRS Services for the Indian market and in those circumstances, the Tribunal had held that Interglobe was authorized to enter into contract with the subscribers in terms of authority generated under the distribution agreement. This authorization to bind Galileo gave an agent status to Interglobe. In the case in hand, there is no such intermediary. Further, there is no exclusiveness of the entities like American Express who have entered into global subscriber agreements. They are unrelated parties acting in their ordinary course of business with no exclusiveness to each other. Ld. DRP has appreciated this aspect by holding that the travel agents in India are not exclusive to the assessee while considering the question of fixed place PE but that somehow goes against the concept of Agency PE and for that reasons, nothing specific was held with regard to the Agency PE by DRP. This itself was sufficient to conclude that there was no entity which was habitually procuring contracts for the assessee or to bind the assessee for the contracts to be entered by that entity independently. Thus, we are inclined to hold there was no Agency PE, also.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - G S Pannu - Full Document

Sabre Glbl Inc., New Delhi vs Acit (International Taxation), ... on 9 February, 2024

32. Now with regard to the alleged Agency PE, as we have concluded that the business model post 2005 does not have an intermediary in the form of NMD and as in the case of Galileo International Inc. (supra) there was active intermediary, as Interglobe, so there is no question of existence of Agency PE. In case of Galileo International Inc. (supra), the terms of agreement provided that Galileo International had appointed Interglobe as a sole and exclusive distributor of Galileo International CRS Services for the Indian market and in those circumstances, the Tribunal had held that Interglobe was authorized to enter into contract with the subscribers in terms of authority generated under the distribution agreement. This authorization to bind Galileo gave an agent status to Interglobe. In the case in hand, there is no such intermediary. Further, there is no exclusiveness of the entities like American Express who have entered into global subscriber agreements. They are unrelated parties acting in their ordinary course of business with no exclusiveness to each other. Ld. DRP has appreciated this aspect by holding that the travel agents in India are not exclusive to the assessee while considering the question of fixed place PE but that somehow goes against the concept of Agency PE and for that reasons, nothing specific was held with regard to the Agency PE by DRP. This itself was sufficient to conclude that there was no entity which was habitually procuring contracts for the assessee or to bind the assessee for the contracts to be entered by that entity independently. Thus, we are inclined to hold there was no Agency PE, also.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - G S Pannu - Full Document

Sabre Glbl Inc., New Delhi vs Acit (International Taxation), ... on 9 February, 2024

32. Now with regard to the alleged Agency PE, as we have concluded that the business model post 2005 does not have an intermediary in the form of NMD and as in the case of Galileo International Inc. (supra) there was active intermediary, as Interglobe, so there is no question of existence of Agency PE. In case of Galileo International Inc. (supra), the terms of agreement provided that Galileo International had appointed Interglobe as a sole and exclusive distributor of Galileo International CRS Services for the Indian market and in those circumstances, the Tribunal had held that Interglobe was authorized to enter into contract with the subscribers in terms of authority generated under the distribution agreement. This authorization to bind Galileo gave an agent status to Interglobe. In the case in hand, there is no such intermediary. Further, there is no exclusiveness of the entities like American Express who have entered into global subscriber agreements. They are unrelated parties acting in their ordinary course of business with no exclusiveness to each other. Ld. DRP has appreciated this aspect by holding that the travel agents in India are not exclusive to the assessee while considering the question of fixed place PE but that somehow goes against the concept of Agency PE and for that reasons, nothing specific was held with regard to the Agency PE by DRP. This itself was sufficient to conclude that there was no entity which was habitually procuring contracts for the assessee or to bind the assessee for the contracts to be entered by that entity independently. Thus, we are inclined to hold there was no Agency PE, also.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - G S Pannu - Full Document

Sabre Glbl Inc. , Usa vs Acit Circle - 3(1)(2) International ... on 9 February, 2024

32. Now with regard to the alleged Agency PE, as we have concluded that the business model post 2005 does not have an intermediary in the form of NMD and as in the case of Galileo International Inc. (supra) there was active intermediary, as Interglobe, so there is no question of existence of Agency PE. In case of Galileo International Inc. (supra), the terms of agreement provided that Galileo International had appointed Interglobe as a sole and exclusive distributor of Galileo International CRS Services for the Indian market and in those circumstances, the Tribunal had held that Interglobe was authorized to enter into contract with the subscribers in terms of authority generated under the distribution agreement. This authorization to bind Galileo gave an agent status to Interglobe. In the case in hand, there is no such intermediary. Further, there is no exclusiveness of the entities like American Express who have entered into global subscriber agreements. They are unrelated parties acting in their ordinary course of business with no exclusiveness to each other. Ld. DRP has appreciated this aspect by holding that the travel agents in India are not exclusive to the assessee while considering the question of fixed place PE but that somehow goes against the concept of Agency PE and for that reasons, nothing specific was held with regard to the Agency PE by DRP. This itself was sufficient to conclude that there was no entity which was habitually procuring contracts for the assessee or to bind the assessee for the contracts to be entered by that entity independently. Thus, we are inclined to hold there was no Agency PE, also.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - G S Pannu - Full Document
1   2 3 Next