Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Foreign Company Wins Tax Dispute in India</h1> <h3>Lubrizol Corpn. USA Versus DIT</h3> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, a foreign company with a joint venture in India, on issues related to Permanent Establishment (P.E.), profit ... DTAA between U.S.A. and India - Application of stay - Demand - Arm length price - there are no hard and fast rules regarding grant of stay, but prudence, discretion and circumspection are called for and that stay should not be granted as a matter of course - since the assessee has prima-facie arguable case, it would be in the interest of justice to stay the demand raised by the Revenue subject to condition specified in this order and deposit of 25% of the total outstanding - Decided in favour of the assessee Issues Involved:1. Permanent Establishment (P.E.) of the assessee in India.2. Attribution of profits to P.E.3. Levy of interest under section 234B.4. Stay of outstanding demand.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Permanent Establishment (P.E.) of the Assessee in India:The assessee, a foreign company incorporated in the U.S.A. and engaged in manufacturing high-performance chemicals, has a joint venture with IOCL in India, named Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. (LIPL). The Assessing Officer (AO) concluded that LIPL constitutes a P.E. of the assessee in India under Article 5(1), 5(2), and 5(4) of the DTAA between the U.S.A. and India. The AO based this conclusion on the exclusive sales representation agreement and the sales and marketing agreement between the assessee and LIPL.2. Attribution of Profits to P.E.:The AO determined that the profits made by the assessee from sales in India were taxable in India because LIPL, acting as the P.E., facilitated these sales. The AO rejected the assessee's contention that it had been fully compensated through commissions and thus no further profits should be taxable in India. The AO applied the Force of Attraction Rule under Article 7(1) of the DTAA, attributing profits from direct sales in India to the P.E. The AO estimated the profits at 5% of the total sales in India, amounting to USD 498,395.3. Levy of Interest under Section 234B:The assessee contested the levy of interest under section 234B, arguing that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) v/s Morgan Stanley and Co. INC., which held that no further profits need to be attributed to a P.E. remunerated on an arm's length basis. The assessee also cited the Jurisdictional Tribunal's decision in Dy. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)-I(2) v/s Daimler Chrysler A.G., arguing that LIPL, acting merely as a representative office, does not qualify as a P.E. for profit attribution purposes.4. Stay of Outstanding Demand:The assessee filed a stay petition under Rule-35A of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, seeking a stay on the total outstanding demand of Rs.1,48,60,961, comprising tax and interest. The Tribunal considered the assessee's prima facie arguable case and the guidelines framed by the Tribunal, which do not necessitate a rejection letter from the AO or CIT(A) for granting a stay. The Tribunal referred to the decision in M/s. KEC International Limited V/s ACIT, emphasizing that prudence, discretion, and circumspection are required in granting stays, and financial constraints are an important consideration.Conclusion:The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and considering the facts and circumstances, decided to stay the demand raised by the Revenue subject to the following conditions:1. The assessee must deposit 25% of the total outstanding demand by 23rd December 2010.2. For the balance amount, the assessee must furnish security to the satisfaction of the AO.3. The assessee must not seek adjournment on the date fixed for hearing, else the stay order will be vacated.The Tribunal directed the Registry to fix the appeal for final disposal on 17th January 2011 and pronounced the order in the open Court on 24/11/2010. The assessee's stay application was allowed subject to the stated conditions.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found