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 366,470 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

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 144C(13)Section 234ASection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 271(1)(c)Section 5
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

dependent agent peinstallation peagency peservice pefixed place peuse of equipmentprofit split methodsection 44dfunctional analysisfar analysismake available clausesection 44bb

Judgments citing DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co.

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1062/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…d the control and ITA Nos.1062 to 1068/PUN/2017 45 management of affairs of business and findings of TPO in this regard were referred at pages 73 to 76 of TPO order. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the decisions in DIT (IT) Vs. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. (2007) 292 ITR 416 (SC), Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Addl.CIT & Anr. (2019) 197 TTJ 393 (Del) and Google India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jt.DIT (IT) & Ors. (2018) 194 TTJ 385 (Bang). The Ld. DR stressed that TPO had carried out FAR analysis of transaction which was a very important part of TP analysis and it is wrong to say and vide para 15 of written no…

General Reinsurance Ag, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Range 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 7433/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2015-16 General Reinsurance Ag, Deputy Commissioner Of Income General Reinsurance Ag India Branch, Tax (International Taxation)- Vs. Units 107, 108, 109, Meadows, Range-2(3)(2), Sahar Plaza Complex, Mumbai Mathuradas Vasanji Road, J.B. Nagar, Andheri East, Maharashtra [Pan : Aaecg5195K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(i)

…E meets with the arm’s length principle, no further attribution can be made towards the income liable to be taxed in India. The said proposition 25 is canvassed on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc., 292 ITR 416 (SC). Since we have already upheld the plea of the assessee that there does not exist any PE in India, the said Ground is rendered academic and is kept open and is not being adjudicated for the present. 24. Similarly, Ground of appeal nos. 6 to 8 relate to quantification of income attributable to the operations in India as well as the rate of ta…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Ina Bearings India Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that

ITA 281/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.148/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

…net profit margin and denominator varies, which may be costs incurred or sales effected or assets employed etc. Meaning of the term `net profit’ in the formula has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DIT (IT) Vs. Morgan Stanley & Company (2007) 292 ITR 416 (SC), in which it has been held that the : `TNMM apportions the total operating profit arising from the transaction on the basis of sales, costs, assets, etc.’. Ergo, it is evident that the term “Net Profit” or the “Operating net Profit” as used in Rule 10B(1)(e) is to be read as “Operating Profit”. No specific definition of the term Operatin…

Ina Bearings India Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that

ITA 148/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.148/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

…net profit margin and denominator varies, which may be costs incurred or sales effected or assets employed etc. Meaning of the term `net profit’ in the formula has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DIT (IT) Vs. Morgan Stanley & Company (2007) 292 ITR 416 (SC), in which it has been held that the : `TNMM apportions the total operating profit arising from the transaction on the basis of sales, costs, assets, etc.’. Ergo, it is evident that the term “Net Profit” or the “Operating net Profit” as used in Rule 10B(1)(e) is to be read as “Operating Profit”. No specific definition of the term Operatin…

Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.7 of the appeal

ITA 1313/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhtaj Tv Ltd. Dcit (It)-4(1)(2), C/O. M/S. Suresh Surana & Room No. 1609, 16Th Floor, Vs. Associates Llp, Chartered Air India Building, Accountants, 13Th Floor, Mumbai-400021. Bakhtawar, 229, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aabct6542J Appellant Respondent Dcit (It)-4(1)(2), Taj Tv Ltd. Room No. 1609, 16Th Floor, C/O. M/S. Suresh Surana & Vs. Air India Building, Associates Llp, Chartered Mumbai-400021. Accountants, 13Th Floor, Bakhtaware, 229, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aabct6542J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Nishant Somaiya (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90(2)Section 92C

…f income in India is no longer res integra. The ITAT, in assessee's own case for AY 2006- 07 in ITA No.9079/Mum/2010, after considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co & other cases reported in (2007) 292 ITR 416 (SC) held that since Taj India is being remunerated at arm's length price, no further income or profit can be said to be attributable to the assesse in India from its PE. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below:- "9. As regards the AO's conclusion and finding that Distribution income earned by the assessee for the period 01.04,2002…

Jas Forwarding Worldwide Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3296/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year:2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Robin Rawan, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…en if there is a business connection, no further income can be chargeable to tax in India on account of PE since the transaction between the Assessee and its AE has been found at arm’s length. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under in case of Morgan Stanley (292 ITR 416 (SC)). “…As regards attribution of further profits to the PE of MSCo where the transaction between the two are held to be at arm’s length, we hold that the ruling is correct in principle provided that an associated enterprise (that also constitutes a PE) is remunerated on arm’s length basis taking into account all the risk-taking functions of the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Jas Forwarding World Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3222/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year:2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Robin Rawan, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…en if there is a business connection, no further income can be chargeable to tax in India on account of PE since the transaction between the Assessee and its AE has been found at arm’s length. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under in case of Morgan Stanley (292 ITR 416 (SC)). “…As regards attribution of further profits to the PE of MSCo where the transaction between the two are held to be at arm’s length, we hold that the ruling is correct in principle provided that an associated enterprise (that also constitutes a PE) is remunerated on arm’s length basis taking into account all the risk-taking functions of the…

DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Daimler Ag, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 183/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha, Am Dcit(It)-2(1)(2), Vs. M/S. Daimler Ag Room No.1612, 16Th Floor, C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp, Chartered Accountants, 14 Th Air India Building, Nariman Point Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Mumbai – 400021 Bapat Marg, Dadar(W), Mumbai - 400028 Pan/Gir No. Aabcd2354C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 5

…he operative para is reproduced below for the sake of convenience: 31. The following decisions cited by the assessee can be extracted for this purpose. 17 M/s. Daimler AG ―the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme court in case of DIT vs. Morgon Stanley & Co Inc 292 ITR 416 (refer page 555,556 & 565) of Paper Book Volume III, wherein the Hon'ble apex court has observed that since the assessee did riot conclude any contracts on behalf of morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. (MSCo), it did not have an agency PE in India. Similar view has also been taken by the Special Bench o Delhi Tribunal in case of Motorola Inc & Others v DCI…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi vs. Pgs Geophysical As, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1401/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Bablani, CA and Shri Sahil Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT(DR)
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9

…Asia Pacific Ltd vs ADIT –(2014) (34 ITR (T) 192) (Delhi –Trib.) 15. Copy of the ruling of AAR in case of Specturn Geo Limited vs DIT (2012) (346 ITR 422) (AAR) 16. Copy of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs Morgan Stanley Inc and Co (2007) (292 ITR 416) (SC) 17. Form 35A 18. Annexure to Form 35A Page 5 of 34 Fit for Publication ITA No.- 1401/Del/2015. (AM) (JM) M/s PGS Geophysical AS. 19. Certifiedof the transfer pricing order dated December 3, 2013 passed by the transfer pricing officer under section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) 20. Certifiedof the draft assessment order dated…

Ge Nuovo Pignone Spa, Gurgaon vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 6892/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ge Nuovo Pignone Spa Vs. Dcit, International Taxation C/O 6Th Floor, Building No.7 A Circle 1(3)(1) Standard Chartered Building New Delhi Dlf Cyber City, Phase Iii Gurgaon 122 002 Haryana

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. G.K.Dhall, CIT, D.R
Section 147Section 9

…e has been held to be remunerated at arm’s length price to GEIIPL. Assessee in support of its argument placed reliance upon service agreement dated 16/01/01 Transfer Pricing Order and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley reported in 292 ITR 416. It was thus submitted that no further attribution of income was necessary in this case. 2.9. Assessee further contended without prejudice to the above that, in any case, attribution was being made to alleged PE in India, deduction of fees paid by assessee to GEIIPL for marketing services availed by assessee should be allowed in computing taxable…

Ge Energy Parts Inc vs. Commissioner Ofincome Tax (International Taxation), Delhi - I

ITA/621/2017HC Delhi21 Dec 2018

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 260A

…ia. Should you require, we can provide copies of these agreements for your reference? Therefore, even assuming, without admitting that GE overseas has a PE in India, placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs. Morgan Stanley (292 ITR 416) as affirmed by the Mumbai High Court judgment in the case of SET Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. vs. DCIT (307 ITR 205), no further profits can be either attributed or taxed in hands of the alleged PE". This contention of the assessee is not acceptable for the following reasons: ITA 621/2017 & connected matters Page 81 of 85 (i) T…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Jsl Ltd., Hisar

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 4110/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…ITA No 4249 / Del/2012, 4110/Del/2013 & 6337/Del/2013 A Y 2007-08 and 2008-09 Jindal Steel Limited Vs ACIT Cen Circle 4(1) , New Delhi INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―I-I‖ NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA number 6337/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2008 – 09) JSL Limited, ACIT, Vs. (Now known as Jindal Stainless Ltd, OP Central Circle-9, Jindal Marg, Hissar New Delhi PAN: AABCJ1969M (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, JSL Limited, Vs. Central Circle-4(1), (Now known as Jindal Stainless New Delhi Ltd, OP Jindal Marg, Hissar PAN: AABCJ1969M (Appellant) (Respo…

Jindal Stainless Ltd., Hisar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 6337/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…ITA No 4249 / Del/2012, 4110/Del/2013 & 6337/Del/2013 A Y 2007-08 and 2008-09 Jindal Steel Limited Vs ACIT Cen Circle 4(1) , New Delhi INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―I-I‖ NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA number 6337/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2008 – 09) JSL Limited, ACIT, Vs. (Now known as Jindal Stainless Ltd, OP Central Circle-9, Jindal Marg, Hissar New Delhi PAN: AABCJ1969M (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, JSL Limited, Vs. Central Circle-4(1), (Now known as Jindal Stainless New Delhi Ltd, OP Jindal Marg, Hissar PAN: AABCJ1969M (Appellant) (Respo…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. at & S India Pvt. Ltd., Mysore

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 975/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

…O violated the 'principle of consistency' enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT reported in [1992] 193 ITR 321/60 Taxman 248 and DIT (International Taxation) v. Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. reported in [2007] 292 ITR 416 (SC) and also in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-IV, Appellant (s) versus M/s. Dalmia Promoters & Devels. (P) Ltd Respondent(s) reported in [2015] 5 ITR-OL 277 (SC). The consistency principle has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Kolkata ITA No.515/KOL/2016, 974 & 975/KOL/2017 [Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2009-10, 2010-11] Tribunal in th…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S at & S Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 515/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

…O violated the 'principle of consistency' enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT reported in [1992] 193 ITR 321/60 Taxman 248 and DIT (International Taxation) v. Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. reported in [2007] 292 ITR 416 (SC) and also in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-IV, Appellant (s) versus M/s. Dalmia Promoters & Devels. (P) Ltd Respondent(s) reported in [2015] 5 ITR-OL 277 (SC). The consistency principle has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Kolkata ITA No.515/KOL/2016, 974 & 975/KOL/2017 [Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2009-10, 2010-11] Tribunal in th…

Pr Commr of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad vs. K Ravinder Reddy, Hyderabad

ITTA/621/2017HC Telangana23 Aug 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Espn Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. Et Compagnie, Mauritius vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3411/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: S/Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 9

…bmission in this regard have been incorporated by the ld. CIT(A) from pages 23 to 30 including the various judgments relied upon by the assessee specifically the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs. Morgan Stanley & Co., reported in (2009) 292 ITR 416 (SC); and the judgments of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., (307 ITR 205 (Bom) and Delhi High Court in Gallilio International, 371 CTR 251 (Del.) and catena of other decisions. 6. However, ld. CIT (A) did not accept the assessee’s contention and the various judgments relied upon by the assessee on the…

Espn Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. Et Compagnie, Mauritius vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3410/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: S/Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 9

…bmission in this regard have been incorporated by the ld. CIT(A) from pages 23 to 30 including the various judgments relied upon by the assessee specifically the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs. Morgan Stanley & Co., reported in (2009) 292 ITR 416 (SC); and the judgments of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., (307 ITR 205 (Bom) and Delhi High Court in Gallilio International, 371 CTR 251 (Del.) and catena of other decisions. 6. However, ld. CIT (A) did not accept the assessee’s contention and the various judgments relied upon by the assessee on the…

DCIT (It) 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITAs No

ITA 6326/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…ncome in India is no longer res integra. The ITAT, in assessee’s own case for AY 2006- 07 in ITA No.9079/Mum/2010, after considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co & other cases reported in (2007) 292 ITR 416 (SC) held that since Taj India is being remunerated at arm’s length price, no further income or profit can be said to be attributable to the assesse in India from its PE. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below:- “9. As regards the AO's conclusion and finding that Distribution income earned by the assessee for the period 01.04,200…

Nokia Net Works Nokia Group Finland vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the issues which have been remanded back by the Hon'ble High Court to this Tribunal stands decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

ITA 1964/DEL/2001[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2018AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Amit SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shiv Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 3

…ntext of Service PE but also PE under Article 5(5) and 5(1). In support, of this contention he strongly relied upon the ratio in the judgment 55 I.T.As. No.1963 & 1964/DEL/2001 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. (2007) 292 ITR 416 and Delhi High Court judgment in Centrica India Offshore vs. CIT, reported in (2014) 364 ITR 336 (Del). 30. The Installation Contracts immediately after the incorporation of Indian Company has also been signed by same person, Mr. Hannu Karavitra. Not only that, whenever the assessee’s employee use to come, then the NIPL was providing infrastruct…