COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/590/2015HC DelhiDLHC01267831201514 March 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the questions of law raised in the appeals stand answered against the Revenue. This conclusion was reached based on a fair concession made by the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue). The concession was that the issues were already decided against the Revenue in the majority opinion of a previous case, ITA 180/2014. Consequently, following the precedent set in ITA 180/2014, the High Court dismissed all the present appeals. The specific reasoning of the ITAT on Section 40(a)(i) and the existence of PEs, as well as the ratio decidendi of ITA 180/2014, are not detailed in this excerpt, but the outcome is a dismissal of the Revenue's appeals. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

These appeals by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax/Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) are against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent in all appeals is Mitsubishi Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. The appeals concern multiple assessment years, though not explicitly stated in the provided text. The core of the dispute revolves around the applicability of Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in light of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) with Japan and the US, and the existence of Permanent Establishments (PEs) in India. The High Court is considering these appeals based on the ITAT's findings.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide the following questions of law: 1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) erred in holding that Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be applied in view of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) between India and Japan, and India and the US. 2. Whether the ITAT erred in reversing the findings of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) with respect to the existence of Permanent Establishments (PEs) in India. Contentions: Assessee (Mitsubishi Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.): The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The counsel for the assessee appeared through Mr. Mayank Nagi and Mr. Tarun Singh. Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax/Principal Commissioner of Income Tax): The learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) fairly conceded that the aforenoted questions stand answered against the Revenue in light of the majority opinion rendered in ITA 180/2014. The counsel for the Revenue appeared through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC, with Ms. Deeksha Gupta, Adv.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(i)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~6 to 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 590/2015

COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant

Through: Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr.SC with

Ms.Deeksha Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Sr.SC with

Ms. Easha and Ms. Hemlata

Rawat, Advs for Revenue.

versus

MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD ..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Mayank Nagi and Mr.Tarun

Singh, Advs. 7 + ITA 45/2016

PR. CIT-06

..... Appellant

Through: Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr.SC with

Ms.Deeksha Gupta, Adv.

versus

MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Mayank Nagi and Mr.Tarun

Singh, Advs. 8 + ITA 1119/2017

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 ..... Appellant

Through: Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr.SC with

Ms.Deeksha Gupta, Adv.

versus

MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA PVT.LTD. ..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Mayank Nagi and Mr.Tarun

Singh, Advs. 9 + ITA 159/2017

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant

Through: Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr.SC with This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/03/2024 at 15:41:11

Ms.Deeksha Gupta, Adv.

versus

M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD ..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Mayank Nagi and Mr.Tarun

Singh, Advs. 10 + ITA 403/2018

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-6 ..... Appellant

Through: Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr.SC with

Ms.Deeksha Gupta, Adv.

versus

MITSBUSHI CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Mayank Nagi and Mr.Tarun

Singh, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R %

14.03.2024

1.

We note that these appeals are concerned with the following questions of law:- (a) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ["ITAT"] fell into error in holding that Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be applied in view of the provisions of the Double Tad Avoidance Agreement between the Indian (sic) and Japan and India and the Us? (b) Whether the ITAT fell in error in reversing the findings of the DRP with respect to the existence of the PEs in India? 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants fairly concedes This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/03/2024 at 15:41:11

that the aforenoted questions stand answered against the Revenue / appellants in light of the majority opinion rendered in ITA 180/2014. 3. Accordingly and following the aforesaid decision, these appeals shall stand dismissed.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. MARCH 14, 2024/MJ This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/03/2024 at 15:41:11

More judgments on Section 40(a)(i)

All 2,009 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(i) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →