Delhi HC in Rolls Royce Singapore (P) Ltd. v. ADIT

347 ITR 192High Court2012#10547 most cited

What is Delhi HC in Rolls Royce Singapore (P) Ltd. v. ADIT authority for?

An agency Permanent Establishment (PE) does not exist if the assessee principal can demonstrate that they were not the agent's sole client and that the agent's activities were not exclusively or almost exclusively for the assessee.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Rolls Royce Singapore v. ADIT · 347 ITR 192 · Delhi HC · dependent agent PE · business connection · agency PE · sole client · wholly or almost wholly · Article 5(5) · India-Singapore DTAA

Sections most often in play

Section 10(50)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 5(4)(a)Section 5(4)(c)

Issues it is cited on

dependent agent pesection 18assistant directorbusiness connectionsection 16interest under section 234apermanent establishmentadvance taxsection 270section 144c(13)complete scrutinysection 270a

Judgments citing Delhi HC in Rolls Royce Singapore (P) Ltd. v. ADIT

Zscaler, Inc., United States of America vs. DCIT, International Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 928/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal, Ccountant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Zscaler Inc., Vs Dcit, 120, Holger Way San Jose, International Tax Circle 3(1)(1), California, Usa, Delhi. Usa 95134. Pan: Aaacz4350P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate; Shri Kishore Kunal, Advocate; Ms Ankita Prakash, Advocate; & Shri Govind Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.10.2023 & 22.01.2025 Passed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…. to satisfy that it is the Appellant who was directly involved with the contract negotiation and conclusion; ii) the Tribunal needs to consider Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT, [2018] 65 ITR(T) 693 (Delhi - Trib.)and Rolls Royce Singapore (P.) Ltd. vs. ADIT, [2012] 347 ITR 192 (Delhi). 19. We are of the considered view that the burden to prove, that assessee has a PE in India lies initially on the Revenue as held by the Hon’ble apex Court in Assistant Director of Income-tax-1, New Delhi vs. E-Funds IT Solution Inc. [2017] 399 ITR 34 (SC). As discussed above there was no discussion of ld.Tax authorites on basis of any…

Zscaler, Inc., United States vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 3376/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal, Ccountant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Zscaler Inc., Vs Dcit, 120, Holger Way San Jose, International Tax Circle 3(1)(1), California, Usa, Delhi. Usa 95134. Pan: Aaacz4350P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate; Shri Kishore Kunal, Advocate; Ms Ankita Prakash, Advocate; & Shri Govind Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.10.2023 & 22.01.2025 Passed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…. to satisfy that it is the Appellant who was directly involved with the contract negotiation and conclusion; ii) the Tribunal needs to consider Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT, [2018] 65 ITR(T) 693 (Delhi - Trib.)and Rolls Royce Singapore (P.) Ltd. vs. ADIT, [2012] 347 ITR 192 (Delhi). 19. We are of the considered view that the burden to prove, that assessee has a PE in India lies initially on the Revenue as held by the Hon’ble apex Court in Assistant Director of Income-tax-1, New Delhi vs. E-Funds IT Solution Inc. [2017] 399 ITR 34 (SC). As discussed above there was no discussion of ld.Tax authorites on basis of any…

Shri Vijay Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

The appeals are allowed

ITA 928/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal, Ccountant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Zscaler Inc., Vs Dcit, 120, Holger Way San Jose, International Tax Circle 3(1)(1), California, Usa, Delhi. Usa 95134. Pan: Aaacz4350P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate; Shri Kishore Kunal, Advocate; Ms Ankita Prakash, Advocate; & Shri Govind Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.10.2023 & 22.01.2025 Passed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…. to satisfy that it is the Appellant who was directly involved with the contract negotiation and conclusion; ii) the Tribunal needs to consider Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT, [2018] 65 ITR(T) 693 (Delhi - Trib.)and Rolls Royce Singapore (P.) Ltd. vs. ADIT, [2012] 347 ITR 192 (Delhi). 19. We are of the considered view that the burden to prove, that assessee has a PE in India lies initially on the Revenue as held by the Hon’ble apex Court in Assistant Director of Income-tax-1, New Delhi vs. E-Funds IT Solution Inc. [2017] 399 ITR 34 (SC). As discussed above there was no discussion of ld.Tax authorites on basis of any…

Dy CIT-It-1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Arc Line, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7347/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 7347/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2013-14)

Section 9Section 90

…d on the decisions of the AAR in Morgan Stanley & Co. (272 ITR 416) (Pg 10 of 134U decision), Fidelity Advisor Series VIII (271 ITR 1) (Pg 11 of B4U decision). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Delhi HC in Rolls Royce Singapore (P) Ltd. v. ADIT (347 ITR 192) (Pg 12 of B4U decision) where the HC held that an agency PE would not exist if the assessee principal could show that it was not the sole client of the agent and that the activities of the agent were not devoted wholly or almost wholly on behalf of the assessee. b) The Hon’ble Bombay HC in DIT(IT) v. B4U International Holdings Ltd. (374 ITR 453…

Arc Line (Mauritius), Mumbai vs. DCIT (Intl. Tax) Range 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2332/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Arc Line (Mauritius) Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 3C Runwal&Omkar Income Tax (International Vs. Esquare Sion Chunabhatti, Taxation)-1(1)(2), Junction, Sion – Trombay Mumbai. Road, Sion (E), Mumbai- 400022. Pan No. Aadca0878J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dharsh KothariFor Respondent: Mr. NishantSamaiya, DR
Section 143(3)Section 44B

…d on the decisions of the AAR in Morgan Stanley & Co. (272 ITR 416) (Pg 10 of 134U decision), Fidelity Advisor Series VIII (271 ITR 1) (Pg 11 of B4U decision). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Delhi HC in Rolls Royce Singapore (P) Ltd. v. ADIT (347 ITR 192) (Pg 12 of B4U decision) where the HC held that an agency PE would not exist if the assessee principal could show that it was not the sole client of the agent and that the activities of the agent were not devoted wholly or almost wholly on behalf of the assessee. b) The Hon’ble Bombay HC in DIT(IT) v. B4U International Holdings Ltd. (374 ITR 453…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 3327/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…dents:  SET Satellite (307 ITR 205) [Bombay High Court]  BBC Worldwide (307 SOT 253) [Delhi ITAT]  E-fund IT Solutions (364 ITR 256) [Delhi High Court], confirmed by Supreme Court  Rolls Royce Plc (339 ITR 147) [Delhi High Court]  Rolls Royce Singapore (347 ITR 192) [Delhi High Court]  Hyundai Rotem Company (ITA No. 3300 to 3302/DEL/2009) [Delhi ITAT]  Galileo International (114 TTJ 289) [Delhi ITAT]  Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (114 TTJ 1) [Delhi ITAT] iii. To support his above contention, Ld AR referred to observation of the OECD in Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (2014 version) on parag…

M/S. Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Noida

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 1946/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…dents:  SET Satellite (307 ITR 205) [Bombay High Court]  BBC Worldwide (307 SOT 253) [Delhi ITAT]  E-fund IT Solutions (364 ITR 256) [Delhi High Court], confirmed by Supreme Court  Rolls Royce Plc (339 ITR 147) [Delhi High Court]  Rolls Royce Singapore (347 ITR 192) [Delhi High Court]  Hyundai Rotem Company (ITA No. 3300 to 3302/DEL/2009) [Delhi ITAT]  Galileo International (114 TTJ 289) [Delhi ITAT]  Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (114 TTJ 1) [Delhi ITAT] iii. To support his above contention, Ld AR referred to observation of the OECD in Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (2014 version) on parag…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- Noida, International Taxation, Noida

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 6916/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…dents:  SET Satellite (307 ITR 205) [Bombay High Court]  BBC Worldwide (307 SOT 253) [Delhi ITAT]  E-fund IT Solutions (364 ITR 256) [Delhi High Court], confirmed by Supreme Court  Rolls Royce Plc (339 ITR 147) [Delhi High Court]  Rolls Royce Singapore (347 ITR 192) [Delhi High Court]  Hyundai Rotem Company (ITA No. 3300 to 3302/DEL/2009) [Delhi ITAT]  Galileo International (114 TTJ 289) [Delhi ITAT]  Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (114 TTJ 1) [Delhi ITAT] iii. To support his above contention, Ld AR referred to observation of the OECD in Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (2014 version) on parag…

DDIT (It) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Arc Line Mauritius, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5492/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Shri Pawan Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 1096/Mum/2010 (Assessment Year 2003-04) I.T.A. No. 5492/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2004-05) I.T.A. No. 5493/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2005-06) I.T.A. No. 5494/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2006-07) I.T.A. No. 5495/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2007-08) DDIT(IT)-1(1) M/s. ARC Line (Mauritius) Room No. 117 Vs. C/o. Freight Connection Scindia House India Pvt. Ltd. 1st Floor 3rd Floor, 3C Omar Ballard Estate Esquare, Sion- N.M. Road Chunnabhatti Junction Mumbai-400 038. Sion Trombay Road, Sion Mumbai…

Bay Lines ( Mauritius), Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 1(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly. Therefore this ground raised by the assessee in AY 2011-12 stands allowed

ITA 6716/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1181/Mum/2002 (Ay 1998-99) Bay Lines (Mauritiues) Adit (It) – 3(2) C/O-Freight Connection Mumbai - 400020 India Pvt. Ltd. 3-C, Omkar Esquare, Sion – बनाम/ Chunabhatti Juction, Vs. Sion Trombay Rd, Sion (E) Mumbai-400022 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcb5853G & Cross Objection No. 32/Mum/2010 (Ay 1998-99)

For Appellant: Sh. M. V. Rajguru, DRFor Respondent: Sh. S. E. Dastur / Harsh

…d on the decisions of the AAR in Morgan Stanley & Co. (272 ITR 416) (Pg 10 of 134U decision), Fidelity Advisor Series VIII (271 ITR 1) (Pg 11 of B4U decision). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Delhi HC in Rolls Royce Singapore (P) Ltd. v. ADIT (347 ITR 192) (Pg 12 of B4U decision) where the HC held that an agency PE would not exist if the assessee principal could show that it was not the sole client of the agent and that the activities of the agent were not devoted wholly or almost wholly on behalf of the asses see. b) The Hon’ble Bombay HC in DIT(IT) v. B4U International Holdings Ltd. (374 ITR 45…

Delhi HC in Rolls Royce Singapore (P) Ltd. v. ADIT (347 ITR 192) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax