DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. ROLLS ROYCE PLCE NEW DELHI

ITA - 663 / 2008HC Delhi30 August 201119 pages

For Petitioner: SANJEEV SABHARWAL

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, were valid as the assessee did not press this issue. Questions 1 and the additional question regarding coordinate benches were decided against the assessee as not pressed. Regarding the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE), the Court agreed with the ITAT's finding that Rolls Royce India Limited (RRIL) constituted a PE of the assessee in India under Article 5 of the India-UK DTAA. The Tribunal's reasoning, as extracted in paragraph 23 of the judgment, highlighted that RRIL habitually secured orders in India for the assessee, acting as a dependent agent that secured orders wholly for the enterprise. This activity was not merely preparatory or auxiliary but a core activity of marketing and selling. The Court found that RRIL's presence was a fixed place of business at the disposal of Rolls Royce PLC and its group companies, functioning as a sales office and soliciting/receiving orders exclusively on behalf of the Rolls Royce Group. Consequently, questions 2 and 4 were answered against the assessee. The Court found no need to remand the case back to the ITAT, agreeing with the ITAT's detailed discussion and analysis of the objections filed by the assessee. Since the ITAT's order was upheld in its entirety, including on the aspect of PE, the appeals of the assessee were dismissed. The appeals of the Revenue, which questioned the extent of income attributable to the PE, were also dismissed as the ITAT's order on this aspect was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rolls Royce PLC, a UK-based company, is appealing against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeals concern assessment years not explicitly stated but relate to the validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, and the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under Article 5 of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The revenue, Director of Income Tax, International Taxation, is the respondent. The High Court admitted these appeals on specific questions of law. The assessee did not press the issue of reassessment validity. The core dispute revolves around whether Rolls Royce India Limited (RRIL), a wholly-owned subsidiary, constitutes a PE of the assessee in India and, if so, the quantum of profits attributable to it.

What were the issues?

1. Whether 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 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) 5. Whether a coordinate bench of the tribunal, while passing an order, can take a contrary view that has been expressed by an earlier coordinate bench in respect of the same assessee where similar issues are involved or should the bench refer it to a larger bench? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The assessee did not press questions 1 and 5. Regarding question 2, the assessee argued that even if RRIL is a dependent agent, it does not constitute a PE under Article 5(4) as it lacks authority to negotiate and enter into contracts. The assessee also contended that the payment made to RRIL for services rendered constitutes an arm's length price (ALP), implying no further tax liability. The assessee sought to refer the matter back to the ITAT for a fresh decision on PE in light of objections filed. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued for the existence of a PE and sought to maintain the Assessing Officer's order regarding the extent of income attributable to the PE.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2011:DHC:14526-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 →