NETAPP B.V.,NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1882/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 September 2021AY 2013-1433 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, following its own prior decisions for the assessee, held that the company did not have a PE in India. Consequently, income from storage product sales and service fees were not taxable in India. Interest under section 234B was set aside, and penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-resident Dutch company, was held to have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to its subsidiary, NetApp India. The AO taxed income from storage products, embedded software as royalty, and service fees as Fees for Technical Services (FTS).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee has a Permanent Establishment in India, and whether income from product sales, software, and services is taxable in India as business income, royalty, or FTS.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C,Section 234B,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Mayank Patawari, CA
For Respondent: Dr. Prabhakant, CIT-DR
Hearing: 01.07.2021Pronounced: 20.09.2021

Order pronounced on 20th September, 2021.

Sd/- Sd/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20/09/2021 PK/Ps

33 ITA N.1882 /Del/2017 Net App B.V vs. DCIT

More judgments on Section 144C

All 3,699 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →