Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Travelport L.P. Usa, New Delhi vs Assessee on 23 November, 2015 cites

Galileo International Inc. vs Dcit on 30 November, 2007

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 67 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 April, 2003

This is in pari materia with clause (a) of [- 20 -] ITA No.6326, 6327, 1342/Del/2012 ITA No. 6499, 6500, 1480/Del/2012 A Y : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10 Travelport L.P.USA Explanation 1 to section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act. Paragraph 5 of Article 7 of the treaty prescribes as to how the profits to be attributed to the PE is to be arrived at. It provides that only the profits derived from assets and activities of the PE shall be treated as attributable to the permanent establishment. It is argued that the clause 'derived from' should have narrower meaning and only the immediate and direct nexus should be between earning of income and assets and activities of the PE which can be brought to tax. For this purpose, heavy reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 5791 and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278 2. While we broadly agree that the profits to be attributed to the PE as provided in Paragarph 1(a) of Article 7 shall include only the profits derived from assets and activities of the PE, the reference to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard is misplaced.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 473 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka vs Sterling Foods, Mangalore on 15 April, 1999

This is in pari materia with clause (a) of [- 20 -] ITA No.6326, 6327, 1342/Del/2012 ITA No. 6499, 6500, 1480/Del/2012 A Y : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10 Travelport L.P.USA Explanation 1 to section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act. Paragraph 5 of Article 7 of the treaty prescribes as to how the profits to be attributed to the PE is to be arrived at. It provides that only the profits derived from assets and activities of the PE shall be treated as attributable to the permanent establishment. It is argued that the clause 'derived from' should have narrower meaning and only the immediate and direct nexus should be between earning of income and assets and activities of the PE which can be brought to tax. For this purpose, heavy reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 5791 and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278 2. While we broadly agree that the profits to be attributed to the PE as provided in Paragarph 1(a) of Article 7 shall include only the profits derived from assets and activities of the PE, the reference to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard is misplaced.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 555 - Full Document

M/S Galileo Nederland Bv vs Assistant Director Of Income Tax, ... on 25 August, 2014

Hon Delhi high court in Galileo Nederland BV v. Assistant Director of Income-tax, Circle-1(2), (Intl. Tax), New Delhi 367 ITR 319 has held that Tribunal fell into error in holding that the estimate of 15 per cent fixed in its earlier orders as attributable to the assessee's income arising in India, is inapplicable to the assessment years in question (i.e. for AY 2003-04 to 2006-07) for the reasons mentioned in its impugned order. The Tribunal also fell into error in departing from its reasoning in the case of the assessee's case for the period 1995-96 to 2000-2003. Against this order, Honourable Supreme court has admitted SLP of the department reported in 230 taxman 361 (SC).
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 4 - S Khanna - Full Document
1