Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT

237 CTR 438High Court2011#5474 most cited

What is Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT authority for?

Income from offshore supply is not taxable in India if the Permanent Establishment (PE) in India had no role in securing or facilitating that supply. The separate nature of offshore and onshore contracts is relevant to this determination.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd v DIT · 237 CTR 438 · 2011 · offshore supply income · Permanent Establishment · PE · no role in offshore supply · attribution of income to PE · section 9(1)(i)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 115ASection 209(1)(d)Section 234ASection 234CSection 234D

Issues it is cited on

section 44bbbsection 209(1)dependent agent pemultilateral instrumentagency pesection 44bbconstruction pesection 44bfixed place pemake available clauseinterest u/s 234csection 9(1)(i)

Judgments citing Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT

Iljin Electric Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 1023/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accoutant Member & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 234D

…his context, learned Authorised Representative also relied upon the following decisions also:– i) DIT v/s Toyo Engineering Corp. ITA no.663/2011, dtd 23.1.2013 ii) DIT v/s Siemens Akliongesellschaft, ITA no.1033/2011; 20.11.2012 iii) DIT v/s L.G. Cable Ltd., 237 CTR 438; and iv) National Petroleum Construction v/s DIT, 383 ITR 648. 10. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, the contract entered into by the assessee with MVRC and DMRC are in the nature of turnkey project. He submitted, it is also not disputed by the assessee that it has a P.E. in India through its project office. He submitted, as per…