Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.46 seconds)
Audi Ag, Mumbai vs Dcit (It) 1(1)(2), Mumbai on 4 March, 2020 cites

Audi Ag, Mumbai vs Dcit (It) 1(1)(2), Mumbai on 16 December, 2019

AUDI AG Vs. DCIT(IT)-1(1)(2) Subsequently, issue came before the Hon'ble ITAT in the assessment order 2011-12 in ITA No. 743/Mum/2015 and 2012-13 ITA No. 558/Mum/2016 and 2013-14 ITA No. 688/Mum/2016. Since issue has been covered by the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT for the assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11, therefore, we find no reason to taken any other view of the matter then the view so taken by the coordinate bench. Respectively following, we uphold the plea of the assessee and direct the A.O to give the relief as prayed for in view of the Tribunal observation of the assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 which is applicable as mutatis mutandis in this order also. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 44 - P J Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next