Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.70 seconds)J.K. (Bombay) Ltd. vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes And Anr. on 17 January, 1979
13. It is evident from above that the decision in the above case, was given on peculiar facts of the case. The assessee claiming deduction under section 80-O was Managing Agent and was held to be performing only managerial services. This case, decided prior to amendment and introduction of Explanation (iii), has no application to the facts of the case.
Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mittal Corporation on 17 April, 2000
18. Having regard to above decisions particularly of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mittal Corpn. (supra) and Inchcape India (P) Ltd.s case (supra), it is clear that fee received from foreign enterprises for supply of commercial information sent from India for use outside India is eligible for deduction under section 80-O. Services can be rendered from India and "supply of information" would cover variety of cases as discussed above. All the same if service starts from India and ends in India then the assessee would not be entitled to deduction under section 80-O for such services. In case where composite fee is received both for services rendered in India and for information sent or services rendered from India, it is necessary to bifurcate amount received and allow deduction under section 80-O in respect of services rendered outside India. We shall elaborate on this while considering the facts of this case.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Inchcape India (P) Ltd. on 2 November, 2004
19. Now reverting to the facts of the case, the nature of services rendered by the assessee to the foreign client, as explained by the learned representatives of both the sides before us, is as follows. The assessee is not a buying agent simpliciter but the scope and gamut of services rendered by it are substantially more than what are generally rendered by a buying agent. The assessee basically collects the information regarding fashion design trend in India as well as abroad with particular reference to the different fabrics available, suitability of the said fabric to different weathers etc. This information is gathered through its knowledge and expertise in the field and after analyzing the same, the input regarding designs and fabrics are given to the foreign clients. Even the samples are also got prepared as per the design and fabric so suggested/recommended and the same are sent abroad. Based on this information received from the assessee as well as after inspection of the samples prepared and sent by the assessee, the decision regarding purchase/procurement thereof from India is taken by the foreign client in their respective country and accordingly, orders are directly placed by the said client with the concerned suppliers in India as suggested by the assessee. All these services rendered by the assessee up to this point culminating in the orders placed by the foreign client for procurement of goods directly with the Indian supplier can be regarded as services rendered by the assessee outside India for the purpose of section 80-O in view of Explanation (iii) to the said section, according to which, even the services rendered from India are considered as services rendered outside India. A useful reference in this regard can be made to the decision of Honble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Inchcape India (P) Ltd. (2005) 273 ITR 92 (Del) wherein the information supplied on the basis of testing and inspection of fabrics/garments/consumable goods to the party situated outside India for sourcing the said goods from India was held to be covered within the provisions of section 80-O. It appears that the basis for holding so is that even though the testing and inspection of the goods was done by the assessee in India, the services ultimately rendered by the assessee were to supply the information based on such testing and inspection and since this information was to be received by the party situated abroad and the same was to be utilized by the said party only outside India for making the decision, it was a case of services rendered by the assessee from India and such services were to be treated as the services rendered outside India within the meaning of Explanation (iii) to section 80-O. The logic thus is that even if the services are rendered in India, the ultimate utilization of such services would be by the client outside India inasmuch as the analysis of the information received on the basis of such services in India is done abroad and the appropriate decision based on such analysis is also taken abroad. It is thus a case of rendering the services from India which ultimately are utilized abroad and thus are to be regarded as the services rendered outside India.
Searle (India) Ltd. vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes And ... on 4 October, 1982
20. The position in respect of the services rendered or to be rendered after the order is placed by the foreign client directly on the Indian supplier, would normally be different and the services rendered after the placement of order in connection with the execution of the said order would be services rendered in India. For instance, if the scope of work includes follow up of such orders to ensure quality control, delivery schedule etc., the services rendered in connection with such activities like testing and inspection of samples, follow up of the order to ensure timely supplies and even dispatch of the said goods to the foreign party would be normally the services rendered in India and not the services rendered from India because the utilization of the said services will effectively be in India for which no deduction is permissible. For this proposition, support can be derived from the decision of Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Searle (India) Ltd. v. CBDT (1984) 145 ITR 673 (Bom) wherein an American company was importing goods from India which were to conform to its quality specifications and the assessee was required to carry out certain test in its laboratory in India and forward to the American company the result of those tests with a certificate that each lot of the goods to be imported from India conforms to the specifications of the American company.
Capt. K.C. Saigal vs Income-Tax Officer on 17 April, 1995
In the case of K. C. Saigal v. Income Tax Officer (1995) 54 ITD 488 (Del), the assessee claimed that royalty was received from foreign enterprises for carrying liaisoning between foreign shipowners and Indian companies intending to send their cargo abroad. The assessee was signing agreements on behalf of foreign ship-owners and had been supplying specialized information to both parties gathered from available sources and earned Brokerage at the rate of 1.25% of freight paid.
Overseas Merchandise Inspection Co. ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 8 March, 2001
In the case of Overseas Merchandise Inspection Co. (India) (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2002) 80 ITD 176 (Cal) the Kolkata Bench observed as under :
Kamkap (India) vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 6 January, 1998
Likewise, Shri Vohra said that decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna in the case of Kamkap (India) v. Dy. CIT (1998) 67 ITD 237 (Pat), was distinguishable as in the said case, services were rendered in India. Further, in the decision, Circular No. 700 was referred to but was not given due importance. Shri Vohra further argued that even a broker was treated to be performing technical services and, therefore, entitled to deduction under section 80-O of Income Tax Act.
East West Rescue (P) Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 13 March, 2002
Shri Jain referred to and relied upon decision of Searle (India) Ltd. v. CBDT (1984) 145 ITR 673 (Bom) in which it was held that assessee carrying on certain tests and certifying product to conform required specification-when Testing and certification done in its laboratory in India and not outside India, was held to be not entitled to deduction under section 80-O. Shri Jain also relied upon Third Member decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of East West Rescue (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2002) 81 ITD 160 (Del) wherein again it was held that transmission of information to the foreign enterprises by any mode was not a separate and independent activity de hors the medical treatment given to patients in India. Accordingly, it was held that assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 80-O in respect of consideration received for supply of such information.
Continental Construction Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central-1 on 15 January, 1992
The decision in the case of Continental Construction Ltd. (supra) had no application.