Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.84 seconds)
Knight Frank (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs Acit - 2(2)(1), Mumbai on 12 June, 2019 cites

Knight Riders Sports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs Asst Cit Cen Cir 29, Mumbai on 29 December, 2017

as envisaged in Article 12 of the India-USA, DTAA; and (ii). that, as the aforesaid payment made to the foreign concern for the services which were rendered entirely in USA, constituted its business profits within the meaning of Article 7 of the India-USA DTAA, therefore, in the absence of any Permanent Establishment (for short „PE‟) of the said foreign concern in India, the said amount could only be brought to tax in USA. As such, we are of the considered view, that even as per Sec. 90(2) of the Act, in pursuance of the beneficial provisions of the India- USA DTAA, as the referral fees received by the foreign concern was not taxable in India, therefore, no obligation was cast upon the assessee to have deducted any tax at source on the said payment. Accordingly, for P a g e | 15 ITA No. 2842/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s Knight Frank (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-2(2)(1) the said reason also no disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the referral fees of Rs. 24,62,357/- was called for in the hands of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 44 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

M/S. Carborandum Co vs C.I.T., Madras on 11 April, 1977

8. The second aspect of the same question is whether the commission amounts credited in the books of the statutory agent can be treated as incomes accrued, arisen, or deemed to have accrued or arisen in India to the non-resident assessees during the relevant year. This takes us to s. 9 of the Act. It is urged that the commission amounts should be treated as incomes deemed to have accrued or arisen in India as they, according to the Department, had either accrued or arisen through and from the business connection in India that existed between the non- resident assessees and the statutory agent. This contention overlooks the effect of cl. (a) of the Explanation to cl. (i) of sub-s. (1) of s. 9 of the Act which provides that in the case of a business of which all the operations are not carried out in India, the income of the business deemed under that clause to accrue or arise in India shall be only such part of the income as is reasonably attributable to the operations carried out in India. If all such operations are out in India, the entire income accruing therefrom shall be deemed to have accrued in India. If, however, all the operations are not carried out in the taxable territories, the profits and gains of business deemed to accrue in India through and from business connection in India shall be only such profits and gains as are reasonably attributable to that part of the operations carried out in the taxable territories. If no operations of business are carried out in the taxable territories, it follows that the income accruing or arising abroad through or from any business connection in India cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India [See CIT vs. R.D. Aggarwal & Co. (1965) 56 ITR 20 (SC) and Carborandum Co. vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 335 (SC) which are decided on the basis of s. 42 of the Indian IT Act, 1922, which corresponds to s. 9(1)(i) of the Act].
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 112 - N L Untwalia - Full Document
1   2 Next