DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. ROLLS ROYCE PLC, NEW DELHI

ITA - 650 / 2008HC Delhi30 August 201119 pages

For Petitioner: SANJEEV SABHARWAL

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided the issues as follows: Question 1 regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 was decided against the assessee as it was not pressed. The additional question regarding a coordinate bench taking a contrary view was also not pressed and thus decided against the assessee. Regarding Question 2 and 4 concerning the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE), the Court found no serious contest. The Tribunal had meticulously analyzed various documents and correspondence, concluding that RRIL habitually secured orders in India for the assessee, thereby constituting a PE under Article 5(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's detailed reasoning, which included findings that RRIL was a fixed place of business, its activities were core business functions, it acted as a sales office, and its employees worked exclusively for the Rolls Royce Group, soliciting and receiving orders. The Court held that RRIL's presence constituted a PE under Article 5(1), 5(2), and 5(4) of the DTAA. Consequently, the Court dismissed the assessee's appeals. For the Revenue's appeals concerning the extent of income attributable to the PE, the Court upheld the ITAT's order in its entirety, as it had already affirmed the PE's existence, and thus dismissed the Revenue's appeals as well.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rolls Royce Plc, a UK-based company, appealed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeals concerned assessment years not explicitly stated but related to reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core dispute involved whether Rolls Royce India Limited (RRIL), a wholly-owned subsidiary, constituted a Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee in India under Article 5 of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Assessing Officer (AO) had held RRIL as a PE, and the ITAT upheld this finding. The amount in dispute regarding profits attributable to the PE was also a point of contention. The procedural history involves multiple appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following questions of law: 1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 were valid? (Question of law) 2. Whether the office of Rolls Royce India Limited at New Delhi constituted a permanent establishment of the assessee under Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the United Kingdom? (Question of law) 3. If the answers to questions No.1 & 2 are against the assessee, then what would be the appropriate amount of profits attributable to the permanent establishment of the assessee in India? (Question of mixed law and fact) 4. Whether the findings of the Income Tax appellate Tribunal with regard to the existence of the permanent establishment of the assessee in India are perverse? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The assessee did not press questions 1 and the additional question regarding a coordinate bench taking a contrary view. For question 2 and 4, the assessee's main focus was to refer the matter back to the ITAT. The assessee argued that even if RRIL was a PE, the payments made to RRIL for services rendered constituted an arm's length price (ALP), and therefore, no further tax was due. The assessee contended that RRIL's role was merely that of a post office. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the order of the Assessing Officer regarding the extent of income attributable to the PE should be maintained, implying disagreement with the CIT(A) and ITAT's modifications.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2011:DHC:14519-DB

More judgments on Section 147

ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, Sakti
ITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Raipur
ITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), Rajkot
ITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), Rajkot
ITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →