Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Company v. ADIT

82 ITD 369Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2002#12973 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 244A

Issues it is cited on

permanent establishmentprevious yearpersoncompanysection 14indiatotal incomebusinessinterest

Judgments citing Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Company v. ADIT

R and B Falcon A Pty Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 128/DDN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 128/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2022-23 R & B Falcon A Pty Ltd., Vs Acit, Office No. 402, 4Th Floor, One Circle-2, Boulevard Lake, Boulevard Road, Dehradun, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai Uttarakhand-248001 Lit S.O. Mumbai-400076 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccr5345Q Assessee By : Sh. Amit Arora, Ca & Sh. Vishal Mishra, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2022-23, Arises Against The Cit(A)-3, Noida’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1076592383(1) Dated 30.05.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Arora, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 244A

…He further considered the provisions of article 5 (2) of The Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and held that the ‘project office’ also constitute a permanent establishment. He further referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in Micoperi SPA Milano [82 ITD 369] wherein it has been held that the ‘project office’ constitutes a permanent establishment. He further held that the assessee had the project office in the previous years also therefore, it cannot be said that the preparatory or auxiliary services were being carried out from that office. He therefore after considering the all these facts followed t…

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT(It) 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1683/MUM/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleorder Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. These Cross Appeals Are Filled By The Assessee & Revenue Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter In Short "Ld.Cit(A)"] Dated 28.12.2018 For The A.Ys.2002-03 & 2003-04. 2. Since The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Revenue Appeals

Section 195Section 28Section 9(1)(v)

…ing of the costs. (b) no invoice was raised on the Indian branch. In this context of non-furnishing of the relevant details by the assessee, it would be worthwhile to go through the judgment of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai., in the case of Micoperi, Italian Company, (82 ITD 369) wherein it has been held that the disallowance made by the assessing officer on account of non- production of original books of accounts and vouchers maintained in foreign currency abroad. It was observed by the ITAT that the expenses claimed by the assessee in dollars were not audited by the auditors in India and as such expenses cannot be allow…

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4867/MUM/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Ld. DR
Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…reless 2.3 AO’s contention (page 7) The Ld. AO held that the Appellant failed to produce any details or explanation for the direct expenses, hence, disallowed the entire expenses by relying on the decision of Mumbai ITAT in case of Micoperi, Italian Company (82 ITD 369). 2.4 CIT(A)’s decision (page 19)  The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the direct expenses attributable to Appellant’s business of INR 21,50,15,149/- which relates to GTS, IT cable and wireless Page 13 of 90 and corporate and institutional banking as it represents payment made to self and the amounts are held to be not liable to TDS [refer para 6.13, page 1…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Technip France Sas, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 724/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicialmember Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144C(5)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

…IT, 59 taxmann.com 23 (Delhi) 13. ADIT Vs. International Technical Services LLC, 71 taxmann.com 351 (Delhi) 14 AY: 2011-12 14. Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Company Vs. ADIT, 76 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi) 15. Micoperi S.P.A. Milano Vs. DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 369 (Mumbai) 16. Bourbon Offshore Asia Pte Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 122 (AAR) 17. Spectrum Geo Ltd. [2012] 346 ITR 422 (AAR) 18. ADIT Vs. International Technical Services LLC, 159 ITD 958 (Delhi) 19. ADIT vs. M.B. Petroleum Services LLC.: 63 SOT 63 (Del.) 20. ADIT vs. TDI Brooks Intl. Inc: 64 taxmann.com 390 (Del.) 21. Viking Maritime Inc. vs. DCIT: 69 tax…

M/S Dolphin Drilling Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT (Intl. Taxation), Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 in ITA number

ITA 5220/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Amit Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JDCIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 28Section 41Section 44Section 44B

…He further considered the provisions of article 5 (2) of The Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and held that the ‘project office’ also constitute a permanent establishment. He further referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in Micoperi SPA Milano [82 ITD 369] wherein it has been held that the ‘project office’ constitutes a permanent establishment. He further held that the assessee had the project office in the previous years also therefore, it cannot be said that the preparatory or auxiliary services were being carried out from that office. He therefore after considering the all these facts followed t…

M/S Dolphin Drilling Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT (Intl. Taxation), Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 in ITA number

ITA 5219/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Amit Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JDCIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 28Section 41Section 44Section 44B

…He further considered the provisions of article 5 (2) of The Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and held that the ‘project office’ also constitute a permanent establishment. He further referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in Micoperi SPA Milano [82 ITD 369] wherein it has been held that the ‘project office’ constitutes a permanent establishment. He further held that the assessee had the project office in the previous years also therefore, it cannot be said that the preparatory or auxiliary services were being carried out from that office. He therefore after considering the all these facts followed t…

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

…for or extraction or production of mineral Page 19 of 34 Fit for Publication ITA No.- 1401/Del/2015. (AM) (JM) M/s PGS Geophysical AS. oils. • In this regard, reliance is also placed on the following judicial precedents: Micoperi SPA Milano vs DCIT (2002) (82 ITD 369) (Mum); - McDermott International Inc vs DCIT (1994) (49 ITD 590) (Del) - Bourbon Offshore Asia Pte Ltd (2011) (337 ITR 122) (AAR); - Spectrum Geo Ltd (2012) (346 ITR 422) (AAR); - Wavefield Inseis ASA (2010) (230 CTR 106) (AAR); - Lloyd Helicopters Pty Ltd (2001) (249 ITR 162) (AAR) - - Pride Offshore International LLC vs ADIT (2015) (59 taxmann.…

Technip Uk Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4284/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Technip Uk Limited Vs. The D.I.T. C/O Bmr & Associates Llp International - Ii 22Nd Floor, Building No. 5 New Delhi Tower ‘A’, Dlf Cyber City, Dlf Phase Iii, Gurgaon Haryana Pan : Aacct 8268 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora, Sr- DR
Section 263Section 4Section 44BSection 44D

…e International LLC vs ADIT: 59 taxmann.com 23 (Delhi) d) ADIT V International Technical Services LLC:71 taxmann.com 351 (Del) e) Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Company vs. ADIT: 76 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi) f) Micoperi S.P.A. Milano vs DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 369 (Mumbai) g) McDermott International Inc vs DCIT [1994] 49 ITD 590 (Delhi) h) Bourbon Offshore Asia Pte Ltd [2011 ] 337 ITR 122 (AAR) i) Spectrum Geo Ltd [2012] 346 ITR 422 (AAR) j) Wavefield Inseis ASA (AAR No 844 of 2009) k) Lloyd Helicopters Pty Ltd [2001] 249 ITR 162 (AAR) 30. The ld. counsel for the assessee while arguing that the receipts fo…

Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Company v. ADIT (82 ITD 369) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax