What did the High Court hold?

The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The court noted that the ITAT had ruled in favour of the assessee, even if MIPL was considered a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment, no income could be attributed to the assessee.

The Revenue sought condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an ITAT order. The ITAT had ruled in favour of the assessee for AY 2009-2010, following its earlier decisions for AYs 2006-2007 to 2008-2009.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the Revenue's delay in filing the appeal. A secondary issue, as per the ITAT's decision, was whether income could be attributed to the assessee even if its subsidiary was a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment.

CIT vs M/S Mitsui and Co | Delhi High Court 2023

$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 38/2023 & CM Nos.2669-70/2023

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2

..... Appellant Through: Ms Easha Kadian, Adv. for Mr Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel.

versus

M/S MITSUI AND CO.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr Ved Jain and Mr Nischay, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

O R D E R %

20.01.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM No.2669/2023 1. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 1.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 150 days. 2. Mr Ved Jain, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that he does not oppose the prayer made in the application. 3. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. 4. The application is disposed of. CM No.2670/2023 5. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

ITA 38/2023

page 1 of 2 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:16:12

ITA 38/2023

A request for accommodation is made on behalf of Mr Sanjay Kumar, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue. 6.1 Mr Jain, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, does not oppose the request for accommodation. 7. The record reveals, that this matter concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2009-2010. 8. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”] in the impugned order dated 04.01.2022 has adverted to its earlier decision pertaining to AYs 2006-2007 to 2008-2009. Based on its earlier decision for the said years, it has ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee. 9. Broadly, the Tribunal has concluded that even if MITSUI India Pvt. Ltd. (MIPL) is held to be a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) of the respondent/assessee, no income arising in India could be attributed to the respondent/assessee. 10. At this stage, we are informed by Mr Jain, that in AY 2005-2006, the coordinate bench of this Court, following an earlier decision dated 12.10.2017 passed in ITA No.902/2009, titled Director of Income Tax v. MITSUI & Co. Ltd. has ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee. 11. List the matter on 31.01.2023.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

JANUARY 20, 2023/

Click here to check corrigendum, if any ITA 38/2023

page 2 of 2 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:16:12

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 vs. M/S MITSUI AND CO.

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments