CIT v. Subsea Offshore Ltd.

66 ITD 296Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1998#9139 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(15A)Section 10(2)(a)Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

Issues it is cited on

dtaa benefitprincipal purpose testmultilateral instrumentuse of equipmentcommercial substancesection 90(1)substance over formfixed place petreaty benefitsppttax residency certificateazadi bachao andolan

Judgments citing CIT v. Subsea Offshore Ltd.

TFDAC IRELAND II LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE 4(1)(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 1198/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…90, noted in 1991 Tax Notes Intl 161]. Similarly, a remotely operated vessel which was used to inspect and repair submarine pipelines was held not to constitute a PE because a moving vessel is not a fixed place of business [CIT v. Subsea Offshore Ltd., (1998) 66 ITD 296: 17 Tax Notes Intl 1795 (ITAT)].\n33. The principal test, in order to ascertain as to whether an establishment has a fixed place of business or not, is that such physically located premises have to be “at the disposal” of the enterprise. For this purpose, it is not necessary that the premises are owned or even rented by the enterprise. It will be…

DAE(SY22) LEASING (IRELAND)41, DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1157/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…90, noted in 1991 Tax Notes Intl 161]. Similarly, a remotely operated vessel which was used to inspect and repair submarine pipelines was held not to constitute a PE because a moving vessel is not a fixed place of business [CIT v. Subsea Offshore Ltd., (1998) 66 ITD 296: 17 Tax Notes Intl 1795 (ITAT)]. 33. The principal test, in order to ascertain as to whether an establishment has a fixed place of business or not, is that such physically located premises have to be “at the disposal” of the enterprise. For this purpose, it is not necessary that the premises are owned or even rented by the enterprise. It will be…

DAE (SABS) LEASING IRELAND 43 DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INT TAX.CIRCLE 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1156/MUM/2025[2022-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-22
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…noted in 1991 Tax Notes Intl 161]. Similarly, a remotely\noperated vessel which was used to inspect and repair\nsubmarine pipelines was held not to constitute a PE because\na moving vessel is not a fixed place of business [CIT v. Subsea\nOffshore Ltd., (1998) 66 ITD 296: 17 Tax Notes Intl 1795 (ITAT)].\n33. The principal test, in order to ascertain as to whether an\nestablishment has a fixed place of business or not, is that such\nphysically located premises have to be “at the disposal” of the\nenterprise. For this purpose, it is not necessary that the premises\nare owned or even rented by the enterprise. It will…

DAE (SABS) 10296 IRELAND DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAXATION), CIRLCE 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1155/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…noted in 1991 Tax Notes Intl 161]. Similarly, a remotely\noperated vessel which was used to inspect and repair\nsubmarine pipelines was held not to constitute a PE because\na moving vessel is not a fixed place of business [CIT v. Subsea\nOffshore Ltd., (1998) 66 ITD 296: 17 Tax Notes Intl 1795 (ITAT)].\n33. The principal test, in order to ascertain as to whether an\nestablishment has a fixed place of business or not, is that such\nphysically located premises have to be “at the disposal” of the\nenterprise. For this purpose, it is not necessary that the premises\nare owned or even rented by the enterprise. It will…

SKY HIGH XLIII LEASING COMPANY LIMITED,IRELAND vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INT TAX CIRCLE 4 (2) (1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 1122/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-2023
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…noted in 1991 Tax Notes Intl 161]. Similarly, a remotely\noperated vessel which was used to inspect and repair\nsubmarine pipelines was held not to constitute a PE because\na moving vessel is not a fixed place of business [CIT v. Subsea\nOffshore Ltd., (1998) 66 ITD 296: 17 Tax Notes Intl 1795 (ITAT)].\n33. The principal test, in order to ascertain as to whether an\nestablishment has a fixed place of business or not, is that such\nphysically located premises have to be “at the disposal” of the\nenterprise. For this purpose, it is not necessary that the premises\nare owned or even rented by the enterprise. It will…

SUNFLOWER AIRCRAFT LEASING LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(2) INTERNATIONAL TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1107/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)

…90, noted in 1991 Tax Notes Intl 161]. Similarly, a remotely operated vessel which was used to inspect and repair submarine pipelines was held not to constitute a PE because a moving vessel is not a fixed place of business [CIT v. Subsea Offshore Ltd., (1998) 66 ITD 296: 17 Tax Notes Intl 1795 (ITAT)].\n\n33. The principal test, in order to ascertain as to whether an establishment has a fixed place of business or not, is that such physically located premises have to be “at the disposal” of the enterprise. For this purpose, it is not necessary that the premises are owned or even rented by the enterprise. It will b…

ORTUS AIRCRAFT LEASE 6(DUBLIN) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI

ITA 1106/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…90, noted in 1991 Tax Notes Intl 161]. Similarly, a remotely operated vessel which was used to inspect and repair submarine pipelines was held not to constitute a PE because a moving vessel is not a fixed place of business [CIT v. Subsea Offshore Ltd., (1998) 66 ITD 296: 17 Tax Notes Intl 1795 (ITAT)]. 33. The principal test, in order to ascertain as to whether an establishment has a fixed place of business or not, is that such physically located premises have to be “at the disposal” of the enterprise. For this purpose, it is not necessary that the premises are owned or even rented by the enterprise. It will be…

ULO SYSTEMS LLC,NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 317/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. G.K.Dhall, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44B

…been held not to constitute a PE3. Similarly, a remotely operated vessel which was used to inspect and repair submarine pipelines was held not to constitute a PE because a moving vessel is not a fixed place of business [Dy. CIT v. Subsea Offshore Ltd. [1998] 66 ITD 296 (Mum.)]. 27. The principal test, in order to ascertain as to whether an establishment has a fixed place of business or not, is that such physically located premises have to be 'at the disposal' of the enterprise. For this purpose, it is not necessary that the premises are owned or even rented by the enterprise. It will be sufficient if the premise…

ULO SYSTEMS LLC,GURGAON vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 653/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. G.K.Dhall, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44B

…been held not to constitute a PE3. Similarly, a remotely operated vessel which was used to inspect and repair submarine pipelines was held not to constitute a PE because a moving vessel is not a fixed place of business [Dy. CIT v. Subsea Offshore Ltd. [1998] 66 ITD 296 (Mum.)]. 27. The principal test, in order to ascertain as to whether an establishment has a fixed place of business or not, is that such physically located premises have to be 'at the disposal' of the enterprise. For this purpose, it is not necessary that the premises are owned or even rented by the enterprise. It will be sufficient if the premise…

ULO SYSTEMS LLC,GURGAON vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 6018/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. G.K.Dhall, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44B

…been held not to constitute a PE3. Similarly, a remotely operated vessel which was used to inspect and repair submarine pipelines was held not to constitute a PE because a moving vessel is not a fixed place of business [Dy. CIT v. Subsea Offshore Ltd. [1998] 66 ITD 296 (Mum.)]. 27. The principal test, in order to ascertain as to whether an establishment has a fixed place of business or not, is that such physically located premises have to be 'at the disposal' of the enterprise. For this purpose, it is not necessary that the premises are owned or even rented by the enterprise. It will be sufficient if the premise…

ULO SYSTEMS LLC,GURGAON vs. ADIT INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4849/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. G.K.Dhall, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44B

…been held not to constitute a PE3. Similarly, a remotely operated vessel which was used to inspect and repair submarine pipelines was held not to constitute a PE because a moving vessel is not a fixed place of business [Dy. CIT v. Subsea Offshore Ltd. [1998] 66 ITD 296 (Mum.)]. 27. The principal test, in order to ascertain as to whether an establishment has a fixed place of business or not, is that such physically located premises have to be 'at the disposal' of the enterprise. For this purpose, it is not necessary that the premises are owned or even rented by the enterprise. It will be sufficient if the premise…

ULO SYSTEMS LLC.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5279/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. G.K.Dhall, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44B

…been held not to constitute a PE3. Similarly, a remotely operated vessel which was used to inspect and repair submarine pipelines was held not to constitute a PE because a moving vessel is not a fixed place of business [Dy. CIT v. Subsea Offshore Ltd. [1998] 66 ITD 296 (Mum.)]. 27. The principal test, in order to ascertain as to whether an establishment has a fixed place of business or not, is that such physically located premises have to be 'at the disposal' of the enterprise. For this purpose, it is not necessary that the premises are owned or even rented by the enterprise. It will be sufficient if the premise…

CIT v. Subsea Offshore Ltd. (66 ITD 296) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax