DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. DAIMLER AG (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAIMLER CHRYSLER AG), MUMBAI
ITA 5704/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2011-12
Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Dcit (It)-2(1)(2), M/S Daimler Ag Room No. 1713, 17Th Floor, C/O Srbc & Associates Llp बिधम/ Air India Building, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Nariman Point, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Dadar (W), Mumbai-400050 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcd2354C (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :
For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia &For Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(i)
…income from such sales accrues or arises to the assessee in India. In other words no part of such profits accrues from or can be attributed to any activities of the assessee or his agent in India. The Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Hyundai Industries Ltd (292 ITR 482) has held that in the case of an agreement with a South Korean Company for fabrication and installation of oil exploration platform, the PE attributable to installation and commissioning came into existence only after the supply of the equipment. Therefore profits from supply of the platf orm did not accrue in India. Similarly in the case of Ishi…