M/S. LAHMEYER INTERNATIONAL GMBH,GERMANY vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5634/DEL/2012Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 August 2025AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT, SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)13 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the 'Force of Attraction' rule was not applicable, following its own previous decisions. However, for specific projects (UJVNL and LII), the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further examination due to incomplete documentation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-resident engineering consultancy company, provided services for various infrastructure projects in India. The primary dispute revolved around whether the assessee had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for certain contracts and the applicability of the 'Force of Attraction' rule.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for certain contracts and if the 'Force of Attraction' rule could be applied to tax income from other contracts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Satyam Sethi, Adv, Shri A.T. Panda, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT- DR
Hearing: 29.05.2025Pronounced: 22.08.2025

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 5634/DEL/2012
ITA No. 784/DEL/2014

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :-

The above captioned two appeals by the assessee are directed

against the order dated 06.09.2012 u/s 144C(13) r.w.s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] for A.Y 2009-10 and order

ITA No. 5634/DEL/2012 & 784/DEL/2014 Lahmeyer International [A.Y 2009-10 & 2010-11] dated 26.12.2013 u/s 144C(13) r.w.s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y 2010-11

respectively.

2.

Since the underlying facts are common in both the appeals of the assessee and pertain to same assessee, they were heard together and are disposed of by

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →