F.C.C. CO. LTD.,MANESAR, GURGAON, HARYANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, D BLOCK, CIVIC CENTER, NEW DELHI

ITA 819/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 November 2024AY 2018-19Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the issue of PE was already decided in the assessee's favor by previous tribunal orders and confirmed by the Delhi High Court for multiple assessment years. It was held that the activities of the assessee's employees in India were not supervisory in nature linked to a building site, construction, installation, or assembly project, as required by Article 5(4) of the DTAA, and thus no PE was constituted. Consequently, the impugned addition was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an assessment order for AY 2018-19, challenging the allegation of a Permanent Establishment (PE) under Article 5 of the India-Japan DTAA and asserting that the order was barred by limitation. The assessee argued that the PE issue was consistently decided in its favor by the Coordinate Bench and the jurisdictional High Court for previous assessment years.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the final assessment order for AY 2018-19 was barred by limitation under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether the assessee constituted a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under Article 5 of the India-Japan DTAA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144C(13),Section 143(3),Section 153

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, DELHI

Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Khimta, AR
For Respondent: Ms. Surbhi Sharma, CIT, DR
Hearing: 12.11.2024Pronounced: 29.11.2024

PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.01.2024 passed by the ACIT(A (IT) Circle 1(3)(1), Delhi, under Section 147 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has filed this appeal with the following effective grounds:

P a g e | 2 “3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is barred by limitation and therefore, is void-ab-initio, bad in

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →