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.

Concentrix Cvg Customer Management Group Inc., United States vs. ACIT, (Int.Taxation) 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 668/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

…l that the only one seconded employee was working under the control and supervision of CIS in AY 2013-14 and there was no seconded employee after AY 2014-15. The Ld. Sr. Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley 292 ITR 416. 12. With respect to dependent agent PE, the Ld. Sr. Counsel contended that the CIS could not be considered to be a dependent agent PE of the assessee because the assessee had not rendered any service in India through CIS as agent. Further, it was submitted that the CIS was not authorized to or exercised any authority to conclude contracts on beh…

Concentrix Cvg Customer Management Group Inc., United States vs. ACIT, (Int.Taxation) 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 667/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

…l that the only one seconded employee was working under the control and supervision of CIS in AY 2013-14 and there was no seconded employee after AY 2014-15. The Ld. Sr. Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley 292 ITR 416. 12. With respect to dependent agent PE, the Ld. Sr. Counsel contended that the CIS could not be considered to be a dependent agent PE of the assessee because the assessee had not rendered any service in India through CIS as agent. Further, it was submitted that the CIS was not authorized to or exercised any authority to conclude contracts on beh…

Concentrix Cvg Customer Management Group Inc., United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation)- 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 3512/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

…l that the only one seconded employee was working under the control and supervision of CIS in AY 2013-14 and there was no seconded employee after AY 2014-15. The Ld. Sr. Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley 292 ITR 416. 12. With respect to dependent agent PE, the Ld. Sr. Counsel contended that the CIS could not be considered to be a dependent agent PE of the assessee because the assessee had not rendered any service in India through CIS as agent. Further, it was submitted that the CIS was not authorized to or exercised any authority to conclude contracts on beh…

ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2)(1), New Delhi vs. Concentrix Cvg Customer Management Group Inc., United State of America

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 1281/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

…l that the only one seconded employee was working under the control and supervision of CIS in AY 2013-14 and there was no seconded employee after AY 2014-15. The Ld. Sr. Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley 292 ITR 416. 12. With respect to dependent agent PE, the Ld. Sr. Counsel contended that the CIS could not be considered to be a dependent agent PE of the assessee because the assessee had not rendered any service in India through CIS as agent. Further, it was submitted that the CIS was not authorized to or exercised any authority to conclude contracts on beh…

Concentrix Cvg Customer Management Group Inc., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-1(2)(1)International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 1086/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

…l that the only one seconded employee was working under the control and supervision of CIS in AY 2013-14 and there was no seconded employee after AY 2014-15. The Ld. Sr. Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley 292 ITR 416. 12. With respect to dependent agent PE, the Ld. Sr. Counsel contended that the CIS could not be considered to be a dependent agent PE of the assessee because the assessee had not rendered any service in India through CIS as agent. Further, it was submitted that the CIS was not authorized to or exercised any authority to conclude contracts on beh…

Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 7924/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

…l that the only one seconded employee was working under the control and supervision of CIS in AY 2013-14 and there was no seconded employee after AY 2014-15. The Ld. Sr. Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley 292 ITR 416. 12. With respect to dependent agent PE, the Ld. Sr. Counsel contended that the CIS could not be considered to be a dependent agent PE of the assessee because the assessee had not rendered any service in India through CIS as agent. Further, it was submitted that the CIS was not authorized to or exercised any authority to conclude contracts on beh…

DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 130/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

…l that the only one seconded employee was working under the control and supervision of CIS in AY 2013-14 and there was no seconded employee after AY 2014-15. The Ld. Sr. Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley 292 ITR 416. 12. With respect to dependent agent PE, the Ld. Sr. Counsel contended that the CIS could not be considered to be a dependent agent PE of the assessee because the assessee had not rendered any service in India through CIS as agent. Further, it was submitted that the CIS was not authorized to or exercised any authority to conclude contracts on beh…

Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 7727/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

…l that the only one seconded employee was working under the control and supervision of CIS in AY 2013-14 and there was no seconded employee after AY 2014-15. The Ld. Sr. Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley 292 ITR 416. 12. With respect to dependent agent PE, the Ld. Sr. Counsel contended that the CIS could not be considered to be a dependent agent PE of the assessee because the assessee had not rendered any service in India through CIS as agent. Further, it was submitted that the CIS was not authorized to or exercised any authority to conclude contracts on beh…

Appdynamics International Limited, United Kingdom vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, (International Taxation), Circle-1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3743/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendram Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Siddharth Bhim Singh Meena, CIT-DR

…sessee as held the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the case of Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. DDIT [(2008) 307 ITR 205 (Bom.) after taking note of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of CIT Vs Morgan Stanley & Co Inc [(2007) 292 ITR 416 (SC)]. 13. In view of the discussion above, we are of the considered view that AppD India is not legally and economically dependent on the assessee nor its action legally binds the assessee to contract in India. None of the conditions laid down in para 4, 5 and 6 of the Article 5 of UK-India DTTA are fulfilled to consider AppD India as a DAPE…

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)

…ons and whose presence in the source State is dictated solely by the lessee's commercial operations, cannot, per se, constitute a "fixed place of business" for the lessor. (v) Absence of Human Element in India - Citing Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. v. DIT (2007) 292 ITR 416 (SC), the AR argued that a PE normally presupposes a human element carrying on the core business functions from the fixed place. The assessee has no personnel stationed in India, nor any dependent agent whose presence could trigger a PE under Article 5(5). B. Profit Attribution Methodology Flawed Without prejudice to the primary contention that…

M/S.Redington Distributions Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intltaxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 894/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ived from the employees of RIL in India did not result in any fixed place or dependent agent PE in India. The Ld. Counsel took us through the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of E-Funds IT Solution Inc (399 ITR 34) & Morgan Stanley & Co (292 ITR 416), basis which the assessee had formed a view that it did not have a PE in India. Narrating the facts involved in the assessee’s case, the Ld. Sr Counsel argued that, the view entertained by the assessee that it did not have a PE in India was a plausible one and thus the assessee cannot be held to be guilty for furnishing inaccurate particulars…

M/S.Redington Distributions Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intltaxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 893/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ived from the employees of RIL in India did not result in any fixed place or dependent agent PE in India. The Ld. Counsel took us through the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of E-Funds IT Solution Inc (399 ITR 34) & Morgan Stanley & Co (292 ITR 416), basis which the assessee had formed a view that it did not have a PE in India. Narrating the facts involved in the assessee’s case, the Ld. Sr Counsel argued that, the view entertained by the assessee that it did not have a PE in India was a plausible one and thus the assessee cannot be held to be guilty for furnishing inaccurate particulars…

M/S. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 892/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ived from the employees of RIL in India did not result in any fixed place or dependent agent PE in India. The Ld. Counsel took us through the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of E-Funds IT Solution Inc (399 ITR 34) & Morgan Stanley & Co (292 ITR 416), basis which the assessee had formed a view that it did not have a PE in India. Narrating the facts involved in the assessee’s case, the Ld. Sr Counsel argued that, the view entertained by the assessee that it did not have a PE in India was a plausible one and thus the assessee cannot be held to be guilty for furnishing inaccurate particulars…

M/S. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 891/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ived from the employees of RIL in India did not result in any fixed place or dependent agent PE in India. The Ld. Counsel took us through the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of E-Funds IT Solution Inc (399 ITR 34) & Morgan Stanley & Co (292 ITR 416), basis which the assessee had formed a view that it did not have a PE in India. Narrating the facts involved in the assessee’s case, the Ld. Sr Counsel argued that, the view entertained by the assessee that it did not have a PE in India was a plausible one and thus the assessee cannot be held to be guilty for furnishing inaccurate particulars…

M/S.Redington Distributors Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 890/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ived from the employees of RIL in India did not result in any fixed place or dependent agent PE in India. The Ld. Counsel took us through the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of E-Funds IT Solution Inc (399 ITR 34) & Morgan Stanley & Co (292 ITR 416), basis which the assessee had formed a view that it did not have a PE in India. Narrating the facts involved in the assessee’s case, the Ld. Sr Counsel argued that, the view entertained by the assessee that it did not have a PE in India was a plausible one and thus the assessee cannot be held to be guilty for furnishing inaccurate particulars…

M/S.Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 889/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ived from the employees of RIL in India did not result in any fixed place or dependent agent PE in India. The Ld. Counsel took us through the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of E-Funds IT Solution Inc (399 ITR 34) & Morgan Stanley & Co (292 ITR 416), basis which the assessee had formed a view that it did not have a PE in India. Narrating the facts involved in the assessee’s case, the Ld. Sr Counsel argued that, the view entertained by the assessee that it did not have a PE in India was a plausible one and thus the assessee cannot be held to be guilty for furnishing inaccurate particulars…

ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Bata India Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed and the CO is dismissed

ITA 1844/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in ITA No. 1844/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2009-10;

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

…as used for AY 2009-10. In AY 2004-05 local and e-commerce services were not included whereas they were included for AY 2009-10. (ii) Regarding the commercial expediency of a transaction it has been stated that following the case of Morgan Stanley reported in 292 ITR 416 (SC), it has been held that stewardship activities do not constitute services and there cannot be any charge for the same. (iii) The CUP method has been rightly adopted considering OECD guidelines which say that ALP should be worked out on a transaction-by- transaction basis and also CUP being a direct method deserves to be preferred over TNMM.…

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) - Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1092/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 9(1)(i)

…s: 24.1 The assessee has contended that where a PE is remunerated at an arm's- length, nothing further can be attributed to the PE. In this connection, the assessee has relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case of Morgan Stanley and Co Inc [2007] 292 ITR 416 (SC) wherein it has been held that if the correct arms-length price ('ALP') is applied and paid to the dependent agent then nothing further would be left to be taxed in the hands of the foreign enterprise having a dependent agency PE ('DAPE') in India. In other words, payment of ALP to the dependent agent would extinguish the tax liability of a f…

Lava International Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 532/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…ed Enterprises (in short ‘AE’) and therefore has no bearing on the income of the assessee so as to determine its Arms Length Price (in short ‘ALP’). Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. (292 ITR 416)(SC) and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Jindal Pipes Ltd. in ITA No.1886/Del/2012. The decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Vaibhav Gems Limited in ITA No.14/2015 and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindalco Industries Limited vs ACIT 359 ITR 46(Bom) we…

Fincantieri Spa, Noida vs. ACIT It Circle 2(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3313/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 44D

…ad been determined at arm’s length then no further income can attributed to such PE and in support reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) vs. Morgan Stanley & Co. reported in 292 ITR 416 and the judgment of Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. vs. Director of Income-tax reported in 158 Taxman 259 (SC). Thus, it was stated that income of Rs.82,39,71,604/- pertaining to services directly performed by the head office is not attributable to project office in India and it cannot be taxed @40% plus applicable charges and cess. 5. H…