| Month-Year |
Author/s |
Title |
Abstract |
| Apr - 2013 |
[2013] 31 taxmann.com 5 (Mumbai-Trib) [BCAJ] |
CLSA Ltd vs. ITO |
Referral fees received by non-resident for referring international clients does not constitute FTS u/s. 9(i)(vii) of I T Act. |
| Apr - 2013 |
(2013)141 ITD 62 (Mumbai -Trib) [BCAJ] |
Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd vs. ADIT |
On facts, transaction was for supply of technology and therefore, the payment was FTS under Article 13(4) of India-UK DTAA. |
| Apr - 2013 |
[2013] 30 taxmann.com 362 (Delhi-Trib) [BCAJ] |
Romer Labs Singapore Pte Ltd vs. ADIT |
Test reports provided by the Singapore company did not 'make available' technical knowledge, etc., and therefore, the payment did not constitute FTS under Article 12(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA. |
| Mar - 2013 |
TS-35-ITAT-2013(Del) [BCAJ] |
Qualcomm Incorporated vs. ADIT |
Section 9(1)(vii) – Royalty received by a non resident (NR) from various NR manufacturers of CDMA equipments (which were sold worldwide, including India) is not taxable in India, as the NR manufacturer did not carry on a business in India nor did the customers who purchased the equipment constitute the source of income in India. |
| Mar - 2013 |
TS-18-ITAT-2013(Ahd) [BCAJ] |
ADIT (IT) vs. Adani Enterprises Ltd. |
S/s. 5(2), 9(1)(v) – Interest on FCCBs issued outside India neither accrues or arises in India nor is deemed to accrue or arise in India; Where an interest income falls within the ambit of the source rule exclusion specifically dealing with deemed accrual of interest, it cannot be taxed by evaluation within the ambit of “income accrued and arisen in India”. |
| Mar - 2013 |
TS-51-ITAT-2013(Mum) [BCAJ] |
Siemens Limited vs. CIT |
S/s. 9(1)(vii), 195(2) – Payments to non-resident for availing automated machine oriented and standard laboratory testing services are not taxable as FTS under the Act as it lacked human intervention. |
| Mar - 2013 |
TS-18-ITAT-2013(Ahd) [BCAJ] |
Sintex Industries Ltd. vs. ADIT |
S/s. 9(1)(vii), 195 – Transfer of fabric designs by a UK Company to an Indian Company is in the nature of FTS in terms of treaty and hence liable to withholding tax in India. |
| Feb - 2013 |
TS-906-ITAT-2012(Mum) [BCAJ] |
Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO |
S/s. 9(1)(vii), 195 and 201 - Payments made abroad for services in respect of arrangement of logistics for shooting of films outside India does not amount to fees for technical services. |
| Feb - 2013 |
TS-910-ITAT-2012(Mum) [BCAJ] |
Booz. Allen & Hamilton Ltd. & Co. vs. ADIT |
S/s. 4, 163 – Where necessary RBI approval was not obtained for remitting amounts in foreign exchange and such amount was still payable during the relevant year, such amount cannot be taxed in the hands of recipients, despite the claim for deduction by the payer. |
| Feb - 2013 |
TS-762-ITAT-2012(HYD) [BCAJ] |
Swarnandhra IJMII Integrated Township Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT |
S/s. 92A, 92B – ‘Deemed international transaction’ fiction is not applicable to transactions between Indian entities. Indian JV's transaction with 'Indian JV partner' is not hit by transfer pricing provisions. |
