RAYTHEON COMPANY,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the grounds concerning PE and business profits were withdrawn as settled by MAP. The remaining ground regarding interest under Section 234B was also withdrawn by the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against an order for assessment year 2013-14. The primary grounds related to the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) and its business profits were settled under the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP).
What were the issues?
The main issues were the existence of a Permanent Establishment and the taxability of its profits, which were resolved through MAP, and the consequential levy of interest under Section 234B.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY
Date of hearing 01.12.2022 Date of pronouncement 01.12.2022 ORDER
PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 15.02.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)-43, New Delhi for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. We have heard Shri Akshay Uppal, learned counsel appearing for the assessee and Shri Gangadhar Panda, learned CIT-DR.
As could be seen from the order dated 26.08.2022, ground nos. 1 to 28 relating to the issue of existence of Permanent Establishment (PE) and taxability of business profits attributable to the PE, on assessee’s request, were dismissed as withdrawn in view of the fact that the issues were settled under Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP).
As regards the only other surviving ground being ground no.29 relating to levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, at the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that while giving effect to MAP, the Assessing Officer has not charged any interest under Section 234B of the Act.
Therefore, on instructions, he sought permission to withdraw ground no.29, as well.
Considering the above, ground no.29 is dismissed as not pressed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order pronounced in the open court on Ist December, 2022.
More judgments on Section 234B
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Sarvjeet Singh Through Legal Heir Manjit… vs ITO Ward 1(1), AlwarITA 355/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
