Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)J.K. (Bombay) Ltd. vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes And Anr. on 17 January, 1979
The decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of J.K. (Bombay) Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Assessing Officer was rendered in the context of the provisions of Section 80-O as stood at the material time.
Searle (India) Ltd. vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes And ... on 4 October, 1982
20. The position in respect of the services rendered or to be rendered after the order is placed by the foreign client directly on the Indian supplier, would normally be different and the services rendered after the placement of order in connection with the execution of the said order would be services rendered in India. For instance, if the scope of work includes follow up of such orders to ensure quality control, delivery schedule etc., the services rendered in connection with such activities like testing and inspection of samples, follow up of the order to ensure timely supplies and even dispatch of the said goods to the foreign party would be normally the services rendered in India and not the services rendered from India because the utilization of the said services will effectively be in India for which no deduction is permissible. For this proposition, support can be derived from the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Searle (India) Ltd. v. CBDT wherein an American company was importing goods from India which were to conform to its quality specifications and the assessee was required to carry out certain test in its laboratory in India and forward to the American company the result of those tests with a certificate that each lot of the goods to be imported from India conforms to the specifications of the American company.
Ipca Laboratory Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 11 March, 2004
15. In the case of Overseas Merchandise Inspection Co. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2002 80 ITD 176 the Kolkata Bench observed as under:
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Inchcape India (P) Ltd. on 2 November, 2004
19. Now reverting to the facts of the case, the nature of services rendered by the assessee to the foreign client, as explained by the learned representatives of both the sides before us, is as follows. The assessee is not a buying agent simplicitor but the scope and gamut of services rendered by it are substantially more than what are generally rendered by a buying agent. The assessee basically collects the information regarding fashion design trend in India as well as abroad with particular reference to the different fabrics available, suitability of the said fabric to different weathers etc. This information is gathered through its knowledge and expertise in the field and after analyzing the same, the input regarding designs and fabrics are given to the foreign clients. Even the samples are also got prepared as per the design and fabric so suggested/recommended and the same are sent abroad. Based on this information received from the assessee as well as after inspection of the samples prepared and sent by the assessee, the decision regarding purchase/procurement thereof from India is taken by the foreign client in their respective country and accordingly, orders are directly placed by the said client with the concerned suppliers in India as suggested by the assessee. All these services rendered by the assessee up to this point culminating in the orders placed by the foreign client for procurement of goods directly with the Indian supplier can be regarded as services rendered by the assessee outside India for the purpose of Section 80-O in view of Explanation (iii)io the said section, according to which, even the services rendered from India are considered as services rendered outside India. A useful reference in this regard can be made to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Inchcape India (P.) Ltd. wherein the information supplied on the basis of testing and inspection of fabrics/garments/consumable goods to the party situated outside India for sourcing the said goods from India was held to be covered within the provisions of Section 80-O. It appears that the basis for holding so is that even though the testing and inspection of the goods was done by the assessee in India, the services ultimately rendered by the assessee were to supply the information based on such testing and inspection and since this information was to be received by the party situated abroad and the same was to be utilized by the said party only outside India for making the decision, it was a case of services rendered by the assessee from India and such services were to be treated as the services rendered outside India within the meaning of Explanation (iii) to Section 80-O. The logic thus is that even if the services are rendered in India, the ultimate utilization of such services would be by the client outside India inasmuch as the analysis of the information received on the basis of such services in India is done abroad and the appropriate decision based on such analysis is also taken abroad. It is thus a case of rendering the services from India which ultimately are utilized abroad and thus are to be regarded as the services rendered outside India.
Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mittal Corporation on 17 April, 2000
18. Having regard to above decisions particularly of the juris-dictional High Court in the case of Mittal Corpn. (supra) and Inchcape India (P.)
Capt. K.C. Saigal vs Income-Tax Officer on 17 April, 1995
In the case of K.C. Saigal v. ITO 1995 54 ITD 488 (Delhi), the assessee claimed that royalty was received from foreign enterprises for carrying liaisoning between foreign ship-owners and Indian companies intending to send their cargo abroad. The assessee was signing agreements on behalf of foreign ship-owners and had been supplying specialized information to both parties gathered from available sources and earned Brokerage at the rate of 1.25% of freight paid.
Kamkap (India) vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 6 January, 1998
Likewise, Shri Vohra said that decision of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna in the case of Kamkap (India) v. Dy. CIT 1998 67 ITD 237 was distinguishable as in the said case, services were rendered in India. Further, in the decision, Circular No. 700 was referred to but was not given due importance. Shri Vohra further argued that even a broker was treated to be performing technical services and, therefore, entitled to deduction under Section 80-O of IT Act.
Central Board Of Direct Taxes & Ors. New ... vs Oberoi Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd on 30 March, 1998
Shri Vohra further drew our attention to decision in the case of CBDT v. Oberoi Hotels (India) (P.) Ltd. . He also referred to page 19 of the paper book which contained some of the correspondence carried on by the assessee with its principals. Some evidence was available at page 29 as to how samples were placed/approved and orders placed with buyers for export of goods. At page 57, services rendered by the assessee have been enumerated. Shri Vohra maintained that services were not rendered in India, although these are rendered from India. The assessee carried on preparatory work to enable foreign buyers to select garments to be exported.
Deversons (P) Ltd. vs Chairman, Cbdt on 1 July, 2004
Ltd. v. CBDT 1982 135 ITR 257 1981 7 Taxman 344.