COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 vs. NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 42 / 2023HC Delhi23 January 20232 pages
For Petitioner: SANJAY KUMAR
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no substantial question of law arising for consideration in the appeal, given the prior ruling on the Permanent Establishment issue. Consequently, the appeal was closed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The High Court noted a prior decision by a coordinate bench on the same issue for earlier assessment years.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessee had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, which would make its income taxable. The court considered the precedential value of a prior decision on the same issue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 42/2023 & CM APPL. 3046/2023

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2

..... Appellant Through: Ms Easha Kadian, Adv. for Mr Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel.

versus

NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

..... Respondent Through: Mr Divyanshu Agrawal, Ms Pooja Mittal and Mr Vaibhav, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

O R D E R %

23.01.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM No.3046/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 100 days in re-filing the appeal] 1. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 1.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 100 days. 2. Mr Divyanshu Agrawal, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that he does not oppose the prayer made in the application. 3. Accordingly, the delay in re-filing is condoned. 4. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 42/2023

page 1 of 2 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 27/03/2026 at 12:50:14

ITA 42/2023 5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”] via the impugned order dated 06.04.2022 has ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee. 6. The Tribunal’s finding is that the respondent/assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment [in short, “PE”] in India and, hence, the income cannot be brought to tax. 7. Learned counsel for the parties inform us that qua the very same issue, in the respondent/assessee’s case concerning AYs 2007-08 to 2009- 10, a decision has been rendered by a coordinate bench of this court upholding the aforementioned view. 7.1 The view of the coordinate bench has been rendered in National Petroleum Construction Co. v. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) [2016] 383 ITR 648. 8. In view of what is stated hereinabove, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration in the present appeal. 9. The appeal is, accordingly, closed.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

JANUARY 23, 2023

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

ITA 42/2023

page 2 of 2 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 27/03/2026 at 12:50:14

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →