Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)

Aeg Aktiengesllschaft vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 17 March, 2004

9. He submitted, the decisio n of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Co urt in case of AEG Aktiengesllschaft Vs. CIT (supra) is no t germane to the issue at hand. Without prejudice , he submitted, in any case, if in the said decis ion the view take is co ntrary to the vie w taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictio nal High Court, then the decis ion cannot be followed. Without prejudice to the afore said submiss ion, lea rned counsel subm itte d, even ass uming that the receipts are to be characterize d as FTS, still, it will no t be cha rge able to tax in India, having re gar d to the provisio n of Article 12 and Article 7 of India-Switzerland DTAA. He submitted, the supe rv isory ac tivity rendered in connection with the installa tio n of plant and equipment extended fo r a period more than six months. The refo re, in terms of Article 5(2)(j) of the DTA A, the assessee had a service PE in India. He submitted, once the assessee had a PE in India by virtue of exceptio ns pro vided unde r par agraph 6 of Article 12 o f the DT AA, the provisions of Artic le 12 would have no applicatio n to the receipts from supply of designs and draw ings, as, such amount can only be brought to ta x in te rms of Article 7 of the DTAA. However, he submitted, para (1) of Artic le 7 of the DTAA provides that only so much of the profit attributable to the PE ca n be brought to tax. He submitted, since, in the facts of the present case, the entire work of preparing the designs and drawings was carried out outs ide India, the PE hav ing no ro le to play, the amount cannot be taxe d in India. He submitte d, the amount received is not taxable as FTS.
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 5 - P V Shetty - Full Document

White Industries Australia Ltd., ... vs Asst. Dit, International Taxation - ... on 5 April, 2017

7. Hav ing held so, he proceeded to examine whethe r the fees received can be deemed to accrue or aris e in India withi n the meaning o f sectio n 9. While dealing with this as pect, he observed that the ratio laid dow n in case of Ishikawaj ima Ha rima Heav y Industries Ltd. Vs. DIT (2007) 288 ITR 408 will be of no help to the assessee due to introduction of explana tion under s ection 9( 2) o f the Act, whic h makes it clear that the inco me of a non-resident shall be deemed to accrue o r arise in India unde r clause
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 28 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd, ... vs M/S Kay Bouvet Engineering ... on 27 September, 2021

 CI T vs. Oil & Natural Gas Corpo ration Limite d [2015] 376 ITR 306 (SC)  CI T vs. Hy undai Heavy Industries C ompany Limited [2007] 161 Taxma nn 191 (SC)  Ishikawajma - Harima He avy Indus tries Ltd. - Vs Dire ctor of Income Tax, Mumbai ( 288 ITR 408 SC)  Natio nal Pe tro leum Constr uction v. DIT [2016] 66 taxmann.com 16 ( Delhi High Court)  Linde AG, L inde Engineering Di vision Vs. Deputy Dire ctor of Income Tax [ 2014] 44 Taxmann.com 244 ( Delhi High C ourt)  CI T Vs. Mitsui Engineering and Shipbuilding [174 CTR 66] (Delhi High Co urt  DIT Vs. Nokia Ne tworks OY (25 Ta xmann.com 225) (Delhi High Court)  CI T vs. Neyve li L ignite Corpo ration Ltd. (243 ITR
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - G S Patel - Full Document
1