ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was justified in treating the receipts as exempt from tax, both under the Income Tax Act and the India-USA DTAA, as the transactions were akin to software sales and did not fall under the definition of royalty or FTS under the treaty.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control over the equipment remained with the Indian company, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal. It upheld additions related to bogus sales and cash found at the shop but deleted additions for stock differences and lottery income, finding them explained by disclosures under IDS-2016 and PMGKY.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal found that neither the assessee's claim nor the department's estimation was fully acceptable. The assessee had not sufficiently proven their claim, and the department lacked comparable data. Therefore, the Tribunal directed a revised estimation of net profit at 4% of the turnover.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a fixed place PE, dependent agent PE, or service PE in India. It also ruled that link charges/IPLC charges did not constitute royalty under the India-US DTAA.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a fixed place PE, dependent agent PE, or service PE in India. It also ruled that link charges/IPLC charges did not constitute royalty under the India-US DTAA.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions as the transactions represented purchases supported by VAT invoices and payments made through banking channels, and Section 68 was not applicable. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's undertaking before the High Court regarding limitation, which led to the reversal of the CIT(A)'s decision on limitation grounds.