Category: AAR

Archive for the ‘AAR’ Category


Geoconsult GmbH vs. DIT (AAR)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 22, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Where the applicant had entered into a joint venture with two Indian companies for providing consultancy services for the development of tunnels and the question was whether the JV constitutes an ‘Association of Persons’, HELD: (i) An ‘AOP’ is one

Posted in AAR, All Judgements

Airports Authority vs. DIT (AAR)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 22, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Where the applicant entered into a contract with Raytehon USA for the acquisition of hardware and customized software and the title to the hardware was to pass outside India and all activities under the contract (except for installation and support

Posted in AAR, All Judgements

Dell International vs. CIT (AAR)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 22, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The agreement was for rendering a ‘service’ and did not involve consideration for the ‘use or right to use equipment’ and not ‘royalty’ u/s 9 (1) (via). The consideration was not a ‘rental’ as the payee was not in custody or control of the equipment of BTA. The meanings of the words “use” and “right to use” explained in detail. It is also not ‘royalty’ u/s 9 (1) (iii). It is also not “fees for included services” under Article 12 (4) of the DTAA.

Posted in AAR, All Judgements

Foster’s Australia Limited vs. CIT (AAR)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 10, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

As the trademarks etc had been registered and used in India and enjoyed high reputation and goodwill in the Indian market, they had a “tangible presence” in India and were located in India. The facts showed that they became inextricable components of the business of manufacture and marketing of Foster’s lager beer in India by the group company of the applicant.

Posted in AAR, All Judgements