Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Amadeus Global Travel vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

Amadeus Global Travel vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 24, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

(i) The Amadeus system, by which subscribers in India are enabled to perform the functions of reservation and ticketing, represents a “business connection” because it extends to the Indian territory in the form of connectivity in India and generates income in India when the booking is completed on the subscribers’ computer;

(ii) In determining the extent of profits attributable to such business connection, one has to look into the factors like functions performed, assets used and risk undertaken. On facts, as the major part of the work was processed at the host computer in Germany, only 15% of the revenue accruing to the assessee in respect of bookings made in India can be said to have accrued or arisen in India;

(iii) In view of Circular No.23 of 23rd July 1969, where the income accruing in India is consumed by the payment made to the agents in India, no income is left to be taxed in India under the Act;

(iv) As the assessee has provided computers and connectivity to its subscribers, it has a ‘fixed place’ PE in India. As the Indian agent has the authority to entry into agreements with the subscribers and installs and configures the computers, and provides connectivity and is functionally and financially dependent on the assessee, there is also a ‘dependent agent’ PE in India;

(v) Only 15% of the revenue generated from the bookings made within India can be said to be attributable to the PE. Since the payment to the agent in India is more than what is the income attributable to the PE in India, it extinguishes the assessment and no further income is taxable in India under the DTAA.

See also Galileo International Inc vs. DDIT (ITAT Delhi) (6.1 MB), SET Satellite (Singapore) Pte Limited 106 ITD 175 & Rolls Royce Plc vs. DDIT

Related Posts:

  • Agson Global Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Assessee produced sufficient documentary evidences before the A.O. to prove that money routed from the assessee itself which came back to the assessee in the form of share capital/premium, therefore, assessee proved identity of the Investors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter and as such have…
  • National Travel Service vs. CIT (Supreme Court) The whole object of the provision is clear from the Explanatory memorandum and the literal language of the newly inserted definition clause which is to get over the two judgments of this Court referred to hereinabove. This is why “shareholder” now, post amendment, has only to be a person who…
  • FIS Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT (Delhi High Court) We find that the arguments on behalf of the petitioner are well founded and it must succeed. The audit report merely gives an opinion with regard to the non-availability of the deduction both under section 80-IA was not deducted from the profits of the business while computing deduction under section…
  • ACIT vs. Janak Global Resources Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Chandigarh) It is evident from the above that the issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court was not whether the presumpt ion theory would apply or not where there are mixed funds and the assessee had demonstrated avai lability of sufficient own funds for making the investments . No discussion on this…
  • Pee Aar Securities Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) As the things stand now, genuineness of transactions is to be examined in the light of the prevailing ground realities, and that is precisely what we have done. We are of the considered view that there is nothing to establish genuineness of the share subscription transactions on the facts of…
  • JDC Traders Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) If we accept the argument of the learned DR that u/s 154 of the Act, ld. AO is empowered to deal with the escapement of income in respect of which the reasons were not recorded even after the assessment reopened under section 147 of the Act is completed, it would…

Related Judgements

  1. Saurabh Srivastava vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi Special Bench) 

    Consideration received by an assessee for agreeing not to compete constitutes a capital receipt even though (i) the period of restraint is only 18 months and (ii) the assessee continued service with the payer-company as Managing Director.
  2. Sumit Bhattacharya vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) 

    (i) Amounts received by an assessee from the foreign holding company of his employer company on redemption of stock appreciation rights, being “fruits of employment” is chargeable to tax as “salaries” despite the absence of an employer-employee relationship (ii) there … Sumit Bhattacharya vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Special…
  3. Glenmark Laboratory vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    For purposes of s. 80HHC, the direct cost attributable to the earning of the DEPB license (equal to the value of the license on the date of receipt) has to be reduced from the direct cost of trading goods on … Glenmark Laboratory vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Read…
  4. Mayawati vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) 

    s. 68 does not apply to an assessee who does not maintain books of account. Balance sheet/statement of affairs and bank pass book do not constitute ‘books of account’. In considering the genuineness of the “gifts”, it must be borne … Mayawati vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Read More…
  5. Infosys Technologies (Supreme Court) 

    (i) A stock option which is subject to a ‘lock-in’ is not a chargeable perquisite u/s 17(2) on the date of grant, vesting or exercise. The benfit is purely notional. (ii) s. 17(2)(iiia) inserted w.e.f 1.4.2000 is not clarificatory; (iii) … Infosys Technologies (Supreme Court) Read More »
0 comments on “Amadeus Global Travel vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)”
1 Pings/Trackbacks for "Amadeus Global Travel vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)"
  1. archives » Blog Archive » SET Satellite (Singapore) vs. DDIT (Bombay High Court) says:
    August 22, 2008 at 4:21 pm

    […] Also: Amadeus Global Travel vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi), Galileo International Inc vs. DDIT (ITAT Delhi) (6.1 MB), & Rolls Royce Plc vs. DDIT. […]