Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (3.91 seconds)Section 9 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 234B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 234C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Mahabir Commercial Co. Ltd vs C.I.T. West Bengal, Calcutta on 8 September, 1972
Finally in paragraph 17 as
incorporated above, Hon'ble High Court has categorically
said that the taxable event took place outside India
with the passing of the property from seller to buyer
and acceptance test is not the determinative of this
factor and further referring to the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir Commercial Co. Ltd.
v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 417 (SC), held that overall
agreement does not result the income accruing in India
and the execution of an overall agreement is promoted by
purely commercial considerations as India Cellular
Operator would be desirous of having a single entity
that could liaise with. Thus, it was concluded that the
place of negotiation, the place of signing of agreement
or formula acceptance thereof or overall responsibility
of the assessee are relevant circumstances. Since the
transaction is relating to the sale of goods, the
relevant factor and determinative factor would be as to
where the property in good passes and in the present
case, the finding is that the property has passed on
high seas. In the present case, the goods were
manufactured outside India and even the sale has taken
place outside India and once this fact is established
even in those cases where there is a one composite
contract supply has to be segregated from installation
and only then would question of apportionment arise
having regard to expressed language of Section 9(1)(i)
of the Act, which makes the income taxable in India to
the extent it arises in India.
Article 7 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 195 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Meerut And ... vs Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd on 18 May, 2007
24.The case law relied by ld. DR for the revenue in
Aramex Logistic Private Limited (supra) is not helpful
to the revenue as the said case is based on the
different set of facts. In the said case Aramex entered
in to the contract with the customer outside India for
delivery of parcel, where the delivery of the parcel
located in India, further Aramex had an agreement with
Aramex India for the delivery of the parcel to the
location in India. The privity of contract was between
Aramex and customer outside India. The completion of the
contract for the delivery of the parcel will only be
complete once the parcel is delivered to the location in
India. Accordingly, the activity performed in India by
Aramex India, viz; delivery of the parcel to the
location in India is part of one transaction which
cannot be independently performed. Thus, the decision
cited by the ld. DR for the revenue is on different set
of facts.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Adit Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai on 23 December, 2016
Ltd v. DIT ( 288 ITR 408), the Apex court
held that profit will not accrue in India in respect
of offshore supply of equipment. (The subsequent
amendment to sec 9(1)(i) will not affect the decision
on profit arising from sale of equipment offshore.)
Mere sale of raw materials/ components will not result
in business connection and even if it does as per the
terms and conditions of the contract between the
Assessee and DCIL no income accrues to the Assessee on
the basis of any activities carried out, on behalf of
the Assessee in India. Therefore in our opinion DCIL
does not constitute the Assessee's business connection
in India and thus the Assessee's income from sale of
raw material/CKD units to DCIL would not be liable to
tax in India under the provisions of the Act. We
therefore, concur with the decision of the CIT(A) on
this issue and dismiss the ground No. 1(i) of the
Revenue's appeal."