DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ROLLS-ROYCE PLC, GURGAON
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the matter was settled under the MAP and a consequent fresh assessment order was passed, the departmental appeal had become infructuous.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the DRP's direction to attribute 35% of profits to the Indian PE, differing from the AO's attribution of 75%. The assessee submitted that the matter was settled through a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) under the India-UK DTAA.
What were the issues?
Whether the departmental appeal is infructuous due to a settlement reached under the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) and a subsequent fresh assessment order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI L.P. SAHU
ORDER PER SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.
This appeal by Revenue has been directed against the order of DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi dated 19.10.2015 u/s 143(3)/144C(13) of the Income Tax Act passed in pursuance to the directions of DRP-2, New Delhi dated 21.09.2015 on the following grounds:
(i) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to attribute 35% of the profits to PE in India against the attribution of 75% of the profits done by the AO and in not following the precedent laid down by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in assessment years 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11 and by the Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years 2001-02, 2004-05 & 2005-06 when the facts of the AY 2011-12 are similar to the facts of earlier assessment years and in applying the decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal for the assessment years 1997-98 to 2000-01 & 2002-03 to 2003-04 when the facts of these assessment years are different from the facts of AY 2011-12. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the DRP has erred in ignoring the fact that the assessments for the given AY 2011-12, as well as for the AYs 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11 were framed on the basis of specific information gathered during the course of survey proceedings at the premises of the assessee, and the fact that the assessee has not made out a case for any change in its activities from those discovered during the survey proceedings? (iii) The appellant prays for leave to add, amend, modify or alter any grounds of appeal at the time or before the hearing of the appeal.”
2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset, submitted that after passing of the impugned assessment order, the AO passed the order u/s 90/143(3) of the Act dated 06.07.2018 because the assessee preferred an application under MAP before the Competent Authority. The competent authorities of UK & India have arrived at the resolution with respect to the assessee u/s 90 of the Act read with Article 27 of India UK DTAA. Copy of the resolution of the Competent Authority dated 03.05.2018 is placed on record. The copy of the assessment order dated 06.07.2018 is also placed on record. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, submitted that since the matter is settled in MAP, therefore, departmental appeal stands infructuous, copy of the above orders are provided to the Ld. DR. Ld. DR did not dispute the same.
Since the matter is settled in MAP and a consequent fresh assessment order dated 06.07.2018 has been passed by the AO, assessing the income of the assessee accordingly. Therefore, departmental appeal has become infructuous. Same is accordingly dismissed.
In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court.
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 →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026