416 (SC), DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co Inc: 292 ITR 416 (SC), The Anglo French Textile Co Ltd. v. CIT

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘D’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER LM Wind Power AS, vs, ACIT, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (PAN :AABCL8590Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri ArpitGoyal, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date of Order : 21.11.2025 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. This appealpreferred by the assessee is directed against the…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

…ntracts. In the case of Ahmadbhai Umarbhar 18 ITR 472, the Supreme Court held that the income attributable to the manufacturing activity should be more then the income attributable to the activity of sale. In the case of Annamalia Timber Trust and Co. vs. CIT 41 ITR 781, the Madras High Court approved the tribunal's decision that 10% of the income can be attributed to the signing of the contracts in India. The Calcutta High Court also approved the same percentage as income attributable to the signing of the contracts in India in the case of CIT vs. Bertram Scott Ltd. 31 Taxman 444. We have kept the principles lai…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

…ntracts. In the case of Ahmadbhai Umarbhar 18 ITR 472, the Supreme Court held that the income attributable to the manufacturing activity should be more then the income attributable to the activity of sale. In the case of Annamalia Timber Trust and Co. vs. CIT 41 ITR 781, the Madras High Court approved the tribunal's decision that 10% of the income can be attributed to the signing of the contracts in India. The Calcutta High Court also approved the same percentage as income attributable to the signing of the contracts in India in the case of CIT vs. Bertram Scott Ltd. 31 Taxman 444. We have kept the principles lai…

HONDA TRADING ASIA CO. LTD.,THAILAND vs. DCIT, INTL. TAXATION CIRCLE, NOIDA

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

…rinciple of taxation laws. Ld. Sr. Counsel further submitted that, even otherwise, offshore supplies are not taxable in India, for the purpose of attribution, reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Annamalais Timber Trust (41 ITR 781), wherein it was held that profits exceeding 10% cannot be attributed in case of conclusion of trading operations. 19. We find that the DRP after considering various contentions raised by the assessee, observed that since it has been held by DRP that the assessee has PE in India, profits need to be attributed to various operations carried out in…

HONDA TRADING ASIA CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NOIDA

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

…rinciple of taxation laws. Ld. Sr. Counsel further submitted that, even otherwise, offshore supplies are not taxable in India, for the purpose of attribution, reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Annamalais Timber Trust (41 ITR 781), wherein it was held that profits exceeding 10% cannot be attributed in case of conclusion of trading operations. 19. We find that the DRP after considering various contentions raised by the assessee, observed that since it has been held by DRP that the assessee has PE in India, profits need to be attributed to various operations carried out in…

UK GRID SOLUTIONS LIMITED,UNITED KINGDOM vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

…o principles of attribution to business connection/ PE he relied DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co Inc: 292 ITR 416 (SC), DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co Inc: 292 ITR 416 (SC), The Anglo French Textile Co Ltd vs CIT: 25 ITR 27 (SC), Annamalais Timber Trust and Co vs CIT: 41 ITR 781 (Mad), CIT vsBertrams Scotts Ltd: 31 Taxman 444 (Cal), CIT vs Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd: 291 ITR 482 (SC), Samsung Heavy Industries Co Ltd vs DIT: 265 CTR 109 (Uttarakhand), Affirmed by the Supreme Court in 426 ITR 1(SC), DCIT vs Roxon OY: 106 ITD 489 (Mum Trib.) 10. DR however, supported the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below and submitt…

UK GRID SOLUTIONS LIMITED,UNITED KINGDOM vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

…o principles of attribution to business connection/ PE he relied DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co Inc: 292 ITR 416 (SC), DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co Inc: 292 ITR 416 (SC), The Anglo French Textile Co Ltd vs CIT: 25 ITR 27 (SC), Annamalais Timber Trust and Co vs CIT: 41 ITR 781 (Mad), CIT vsBertrams Scotts Ltd: 31 Taxman 444 (Cal), CIT vs Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd: 291 ITR 482 (SC), Samsung Heavy Industries Co Ltd vs DIT: 265 CTR 109 (Uttarakhand), Affirmed by the Supreme Court in 426 ITR 1(SC), DCIT vs Roxon OY: 106 ITD 489 (Mum Trib.) 10. DR however, supported the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below and submitt…

UK GRID SOLUTIONS LIMITED ,UNITED KINGDOM vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION 3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

…o principles of attribution to business connection/ PE he relied DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co Inc: 292 ITR 416 (SC), DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co Inc: 292 ITR 416 (SC), The Anglo French Textile Co Ltd vs CIT: 25 ITR 27 (SC), Annamalais Timber Trust and Co vs CIT: 41 ITR 781 (Mad), CIT vsBertrams Scotts Ltd: 31 Taxman 444 (Cal), CIT vs Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd: 291 ITR 482 (SC), Samsung Heavy Industries Co Ltd vs DIT: 265 CTR 109 (Uttarakhand), Affirmed by the Supreme Court in 426 ITR 1(SC), DCIT vs Roxon OY: 106 ITD 489 (Mum Trib.) 10. DR however, supported the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below and submitt…

UK GRID SOLUTIONS LIMITED ,UNITED KINGDOM vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION 3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

…o principles of attribution to business connection/ PE he relied DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co Inc: 292 ITR 416 (SC), DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co Inc: 292 ITR 416 (SC), The Anglo French Textile Co Ltd vs CIT: 25 ITR 27 (SC), Annamalais Timber Trust and Co vs CIT: 41 ITR 781 (Mad), CIT vsBertrams Scotts Ltd: 31 Taxman 444 (Cal), CIT vs Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd: 291 ITR 482 (SC), Samsung Heavy Industries Co Ltd vs DIT: 265 CTR 109 (Uttarakhand), Affirmed by the Supreme Court in 426 ITR 1(SC), DCIT vs Roxon OY: 106 ITD 489 (Mum Trib.) 10. DR however, supported the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below and submitt…

GE HYDRO FRANCE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

…o principles of attribution to business connection/ PE he relied DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co Inc: 292 ITR 416 (SC), DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co Inc: 292 ITR 416 (SC), The Anglo French Textile Co Ltd vs CIT: 25 ITR 27 (SC), Annamalais Timber Trust and Co vs CIT: 41 ITR 781 (Mad), CIT vsBertrams Scotts Ltd: 31 Taxman 444 (Cal), CIT vs Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd: 291 ITR 482 (SC), Samsung Heavy Industries Co Ltd vs DIT: 265 CTR 109 (Uttarakhand), Affirmed by the Supreme Court in 426 ITR 1(SC), DCIT vs Roxon OY: 106 ITD 489 (Mum Trib.) 10. Ld. DR however, supported the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below and sub…

GE HYDRO FRANCE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

…o principles of attribution to business connection/ PE he relied DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co Inc: 292 ITR 416 (SC), DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co Inc: 292 ITR 416 (SC), The Anglo French Textile Co Ltd vs CIT: 25 ITR 27 (SC), Annamalais Timber Trust and Co vs CIT: 41 ITR 781 (Mad), CIT vsBertrams Scotts Ltd: 31 Taxman 444 (Cal), CIT vs Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd: 291 ITR 482 (SC), Samsung Heavy Industries Co Ltd vs DIT: 265 CTR 109 (Uttarakhand), Affirmed by the Supreme Court in 426 ITR 1(SC), DCIT vs Roxon OY: 106 ITD 489 (Mum Trib.) 10. Ld. DR however, supported the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below and sub…

UK GRID SOLUTION LTD,UNITED KINGDOM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2088/Del/2022, A.Y. 2019-20 Uk Grid Solution Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of St. Loeonards Building, Harry Income Tax Kerr Drive, Circle- 3(1)(1), Stafford, St16 1Wt, International Taxation United Kingdom New Delhi Pan : Aaica6271A

…o principles of attribution to business connection/ PE he relied DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co Inc: 292 ITR 416 (SC), DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co Inc: 292 ITR 416 (SC), The Anglo French Textile Co Ltd vs CIT: 25 ITR 27 (SC), Annamalais Timber Trust and Co vs CIT: 41 ITR 781 (Mad), CIT vsBertrams Scotts Ltd: 31 Taxman 444 (Cal), CIT vs Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd: 291 ITR 482 (SC), Samsung Heavy Industries Co Ltd vs DIT: 265 CTR 109 (Uttarakhand), Affirmed by the Supreme Court in 426 ITR 1(SC), DCIT vs Roxon OY: 106 ITD 489 (Mum Trib.) 10. Ld. DR however, supported the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below and su…

UK GRID SOLUTION LTD,UNITED KINGDOM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2087/Del/2022, A.Y. 2018-19 Uk Grid Solution Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of St. Loeonards Building, Harry Income Tax Kerr Drive, Circle- 3(1)(1), Stafford, St16 1Wt, International Taxation United Kingdom New Delhi Pan : Aaica6271A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2087/Del/2022, A.Y. 2018-19 UK Grid Solution Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of St. LOeonards Building, Harry Income Tax Kerr Drive, Circle- 3(1)(1), Stafford, ST16 1WT, International Taxation United Kingdom New Delhi PAN : AAICA6271A Assesseeby Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Aditya Vohra, Adv. &ArpitGoyal, CA Revenue by Shree Jitender Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 09.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 12.04.2023 ORDER Per Anubhav Sharma, JM : The assessee has…

ITOCHU CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 360/Del/2017 (A.Y. 2013-14) A N D I.T.A. No. 7615/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Itochu Corporation, Acit, 5–1, Kita-Aoyama, Vs. (International Taxation) 2–Chome, Minato-Ku Circle 2(1)(1), Tokyo 107-8077, Japan. New Delhi. Pan: Aabci5567L (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ench Textile Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 23 ITR 101 (SC); 20 Hukum Chand Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 103 ITR 548 (SC); 21 CIT Vs. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co. 18 ITR 472 (SC); 22 The Anglo–French Textile Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 25 ITR 27 (SC); 23 Annamalais Timber Trust and Co. Vs. CIT 41 ITR 781 (Mad.) 24 CIT Vs. Bertrams Scotts Ltd. 31 Taxman 444 (Cal.); 25 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. DIT (ITA. 01 of 2012); 26 Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC); 27 CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 (SC); 28 CIT Vs. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492; 29 CIT Vs. Arthur Anderson and Co. (2009) 318 ITR 229. 6. The L…

ITOCHU CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 360/Del/2017 (A.Y. 2013-14) A N D I.T.A. No. 7615/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Itochu Corporation, Acit, 5–1, Kita-Aoyama, Vs. (International Taxation) 2–Chome, Minato-Ku Circle 2(1)(1), Tokyo 107-8077, Japan. New Delhi. Pan: Aabci5567L (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ench Textile Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 23 ITR 101 (SC); 20 Hukum Chand Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 103 ITR 548 (SC); 21 CIT Vs. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co. 18 ITR 472 (SC); 22 The Anglo–French Textile Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 25 ITR 27 (SC); 23 Annamalais Timber Trust and Co. Vs. CIT 41 ITR 781 (Mad.) 24 CIT Vs. Bertrams Scotts Ltd. 31 Taxman 444 (Cal.); 25 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. DIT (ITA. 01 of 2012); 26 Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC); 27 CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 (SC); 28 CIT Vs. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492; 29 CIT Vs. Arthur Anderson and Co. (2009) 318 ITR 229. 6. The L…

M/S. VOITH PAPER GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

…ness operations of the assessee demarcating the income arising in the taxable territories inthe particular year from the income arising without the taxable territories in that year. The Madras High Court in the ease of Annamalais Timber Trust and Co. Vs CIT: 41 ITR 781, held that the apportionment of profits under the above provisions should not be arbitrary but on a rational basis. Where the only operation within the taxable territory was the negotiation and conclusion of the contract, there was no justification for apportioning 50% of the profits to the operation carried out within the taxable territory. The C…

AMADEUS GLOBAL TRAVEL DISTRIBUTION SA,SPAIN vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiamadeus Global Travel Vs. Adit, Distribution Sa Circle-1(1), (Now Known As Amadeus It International Taxation, Group Sa), New Delhi Salvador De Madariaga, E- 28027, Madrid, Spain Pan: Aafca9629P (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ness operations of the assessee demarcating the income arising in the taxable territories in the particular year from the income arising without the taxable territories in that year. The Madras High Court in the case of Annamalais Timber Trust and Co. Vs CIT: 41 ITR 781, held that the apportionment of profits under the above provisions should not be arbitrary but on a rational basis. Where the only operation within the taxable territory was the negotiation and conclusion of the contract, there was no justification for apportioning 50% of the profits to the operation carried out within the taxable territory. The C…

ROLLS ROYCE SINGAPORE PVT. LTD. vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed to the

…the judgment of Bombay Tribunal in the case of Ingersoll Rand Company Vs. ITO 4 ITD 654 (Bom.) The ITAT while agreeing with the aforesaid view of CIT (A) additionally referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Annamali timber Trust Co. Vs. CIT 41 ITR 781 (SC) wherein it is held that there was justification only of apportionment of 10% of assessee‟s share of profit of the trading operations carried out in India when except entering into contract in taxable territory all other operations were carried out outside taxable territory. The CIT (A), however, held the view that attribution of inc…