Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.25 seconds)Article 23 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 90 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Dinesh Kumar Jain, Chennai vs Ito Non Corporate Ward-4(3), Chennai on 1 March, 2021
12. Similarly, the reliance placed by the Assessing Officer on Vestas
Wind Technology India Pvt Ltd (supra) to support his above finding
that the bank guarantees commission is business income. From the
copy of the judgment, he submitted that it can be seen that the bank
10
guarantee has been provided by a parent company to the assessee
customers to facilitate the purpose of windmill so that image of the
assessee company in market increases and therefore the assessee able
to sell its product in the Indian Market. The judgment of the ITAT
Chennai in the above case is based on above peculiar facts which
proves that the provision of bank guarantee for in furtherance of the
business of the assessee company and therefore such profits is
considered as business profits for DTAA. But AO failed to appreciate
the above distinguishing feature of the Chennai ITAT Decision to
support the finding that the performance guarantee commission is
business profits.
Johnson Matthey Public Ltd. Company, ... vs Dcit (International Taxation), New ... on 6 December, 2017
i) The income is also not FTS as had been held in Johnson
Matthey case (supra) as there is no rendering of technical or
consultancy service and further there is no concept of making
any knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or process or
development for transfer of any technical plant or technical
design as per provision of sec 9(1)(vii) of the Act and therefore
such commission does not fall in Article 12 of the treaty.
Article 11 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 195 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Dcit, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi vs Power Machine (India) Ltd., New Delhi on 30 September, 2021
In so far as the other decisions relied by the Ld CIT(A) is DCIT vs
Power Machines India Ltd ITA No.2221/Del/2014. In that case, relying
of the provisions of sec 40(a)(ia) r.w.s 2(28A) of the IT Act, it was
decided by Hon'ble Bench that foreign guarantee commission paid to a
foreign bank is taxable in India in absence of any PE of the foreign
bank in India. The Ld CIT(A) ignored the very important feature of the
judgment which is the absence of any discussion of DTAA with the
residence country. Since, in the present case, the taxability of Income
is required to be decided with reference to DTAA with Singapore, the
decision of the bench in the said case does not help the cause of the
revenue.