Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)
Deputy Director Of Income-Tax,, vs Epcos Ag.,, Nashik on 14 December, 2016 cites

Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 9 October, 1953

45. Under art. 7(2), these profits are to be so attributed as PE "might be expected to make if it were a distinct and separate enterprise engaged in the same or similar activities 6 ITA No.249/PN/2015 under the same or similar conditions and dealing wholly independently with the enterprise of which it is a PE". The PE is to be considered as hypothetical independent but let us not forget that the services are rendered by the PE, i.e. Indian subsidiaries, and the services are also availed by same Indian subsidiaries. The fundamental question that would arise in such a case s whether someone can make profit out of dealings with oneself. The answer poses no difficulty. The proposition is well settled that nobody can make profit out of self or trade deal with self or earn from self. It is so held it a series of cases, including Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 506 (SC), Betts Hartley Huett & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 425 (Cal) and ABN Amro Bank NV vs. Asstt. Director of IT (2005) 98 TTJ (Kol)(SB) 295 : (2005) 97 ITD 89 (Kol)(SB), It is thus clear that an income of the Indian subsidiaries, on account of having rendered services to themselves, cannot be taxed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 164 - V Bose - Full Document

Betts Hartley Huett And Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 26 April, 1978

45. Under art. 7(2), these profits are to be so attributed as PE "might be expected to make if it were a distinct and separate enterprise engaged in the same or similar activities 6 ITA No.249/PN/2015 under the same or similar conditions and dealing wholly independently with the enterprise of which it is a PE". The PE is to be considered as hypothetical independent but let us not forget that the services are rendered by the PE, i.e. Indian subsidiaries, and the services are also availed by same Indian subsidiaries. The fundamental question that would arise in such a case s whether someone can make profit out of dealings with oneself. The answer poses no difficulty. The proposition is well settled that nobody can make profit out of self or trade deal with self or earn from self. It is so held it a series of cases, including Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 506 (SC), Betts Hartley Huett & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 425 (Cal) and ABN Amro Bank NV vs. Asstt. Director of IT (2005) 98 TTJ (Kol)(SB) 295 : (2005) 97 ITD 89 (Kol)(SB), It is thus clear that an income of the Indian subsidiaries, on account of having rendered services to themselves, cannot be taxed.
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1