ALSTOM TRANSPORT SA ,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1)(1), DELHI

ITA 2377/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 January 2024AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purpose

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the departmental authorities had mechanically followed prior assessment orders without thoroughly examining the specific contracts for the impugned years. It emphasized that the existence of a PE and profit attribution depend on the terms of each contract and work allocation. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions to examine issues de novo, considering all facts and contracts, and not to rely mechanically on previous findings.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Alstom Transport SA (a French non-resident entity), is engaged in Train Control and Signaling System projects in India, including offshore supply of equipment. The Assessing Officer made additions to the assessee's income by attributing profit from offshore supplies, asserting the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India based on past assessment orders. The assessee contested this, arguing that facts and contracts for the current assessment years (2018-19 to 2020-21) were distinct from previous years.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under the DTAA for the assessment years in question. 2. Whether revenue from offshore supply of equipment and services is taxable in India and attributable to the alleged PE, requiring a de novo examination of contracts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

Before: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Hearing: 16.01.2024Pronounced: 17.01.2024

Per Bench:- The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of Assessing Officer dated 29.07.2022 & 30.01.2023 for the A.Ys. 2018-19,2019-20 & 2020-21. Since, the issue involved in all these appeals are similar, they were heard together and being adjudicated by a common order.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 2377/Del/2022:

1.

The order of the Ld. AO is contrary to the facts & circumstances of the case and the legal provisions and is, therefore, bad in law.

2.

That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making an addition amounting to 710,4

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 234A

All 5,126 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →