Delmas France v. ADIT

144 TTJ 273Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#22692 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2019.

Judgments citing Delmas France v. ADIT

CMA CGM SA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6095/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia a/wFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 172Section 44B

…to be taxed as business profits in India. Hence the question relating to existence or otherwise of Permanent Establishment shall also become academic in nature. In any case, it has been held by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in ITA No.9001/mum/2010 (144 TTJ 273) that if the Indian agent is remunerated at arms length, then the agent shall be construed as agent of independent status and accordingly no agency PE would exist in the case of the assessee in India. The case of the ld A.R is that the Indian agent of the assessee has been remunerated at arms length and hence there do not exist any Agency PE for…

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 1494/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

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)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 80HSection 9

…n office, per se, would not constitute PE of the assessee in India. Amadeus Global Travel Distribution SA Vs. ADIT Kind attention, in this regard, is also invited to the recent decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Delmas France v. ADIT: 144 TTJ 273, wherein the Tribunal, while referring to the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Motorola Inc. (supra), held that that the onus is on the Revenue todemonstrate that PE of the foreign enterprise exists in India. The relevant observations of the Tribunal are as under: ―…..As held by a coordinate bench of this Tribunal, in the case of…

CMA CGM SA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6649/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 144C(13)Section 44B

…to be taxed as business profits in India. Hence the question relating to existence or otherwise of Permanent Establishment shall also become academic in nature. In any case, it has been held by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in ITA No.9001/mum/2010 (144 TTJ 273) that if the Indian agent is remunerated at arms length, then the agent shall be construed as agent of independent status and accordingly no agency PE would exist in the case of the assessee in India. The case of the ld A.R is that the Indian agent of the assessee has been remunerated at arms length and hence there do not exist any Agency PE for…

Delmas France v. ADIT (144 TTJ 273) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax