DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co.

292 ITR 416Supreme Court of India2007#210 most cited

What is DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co. authority for?

A Permanent Establishment (PE) signifies a foreign enterprise's virtual projection into another country, with a fixed place PE existing where an MNE's business is wholly or partly carried on. A dependent agent PE requires the agent to act as such and/or have the authority to conclude contracts for the foreign enterprise under DTAA provisions.

360

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co. · Morgan Stanley PE · 292 ITR 416 · Permanent Establishment DTAA · fixed place PE · dependent agent PE · Article 5 India-USA DTAA · authority to conclude contracts PE · outsourcing MNE · service PE · agency PE

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co.

DCIT, Circle - 11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Wacker Metroark Chemicals Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1087/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ward-11(2), Kolkata………..........…….…….....…....Appellant Vs. M/S. Wacker Metroark Chemicals Private Limited.................................……………..…......Respondent Block-Bn, Plot-7 Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aaacw 2192 G] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri R.N. Dutt, Advocate & Ms. Sutapa Roy Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 25Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 11Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 26/02/2018, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset We Find That There Is A Delay Of 1 (One) Day In Filing Of This Appeal By The Revenue. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Department Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal On Time. Hence The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

…ted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of DIT (International Tax) enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of DIT (International Tax) vs. Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. (and vs. Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. (and vice versa) reported in [2007] 292 ITR 416 vice versa) reported in [2007] 292 ITR 416 (SC). I have also noted that the Ld. TPO determined the arm's length price of the (SC). I have also noted that the Ld. TPO determined the arm's length price of the (SC). I have also noted that the Ld. TPO determined the arm's length price of the international transaction under consideration at NIL value…