SERCEL SA ,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, DDN, DEHRADUN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the contract was for the supply of equipment manufactured outside India, not for services. The duration of the contract alone is not sufficient to establish a PE in India. Therefore, the receipts are not taxable in India.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a French company, supplied seismic equipment to ONGC and claimed the receipts as exempt. The AO, however, treated the income as taxable in India by establishing a Permanent Establishment (PE) based on the contract duration.
What were the issues?
Whether the supply of equipment manufactured outside India, with installation and commissioning, creates a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, and if the income is taxable in India.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 142(1),Section 195,Section 9(1)(i),Section 44BB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘DB’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 15.06.2023 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereina"er called ‘the Act’) subsequent to the direc"ons of the Ld.
1 Dispute Resolu"on Panel (DRP)/TPO vide order dated 25.05.2023 for Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The brief facts of the case are, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) noticed that the assessee has claimed refund of Rs. 59,79,820/- against TDS amounting to Rs. 59,79,820/-. Such TDS was deducted by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGS) u/s 195 of the Act, in it’s ITR. The
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.
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)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 486/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 498/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4558/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026