Nortel Networks India International Inc. v. DIT

386 ITR 353High Court2016#1877 most cited

What is Nortel Networks India International Inc. v. DIT authority for?

The burden of proving the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) under a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) rests squarely on the Income Tax Department.

61

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Nortel Networks India International Inc. v. DIT · 386 ITR 353 · Delhi High Court · Permanent Establishment · PE · burden of proof · DTAA · Article 5 DTAA · Section 90(2) · fixed place PE · project office PE

Also reported as

69 Taxmann.com 47241 Taxmann 464

Sections most often in play

Section 5Section 12(5)Section 13Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271AASection 44DA

Issues it is cited on

installation pesection 14(a)fixed place pesection 14(1)agency pecopyrighted articlesection 52royalty incomesection 9(1)(vi)section 90(2)section 253(5)tax treaty

Judgments citing Nortel Networks India International Inc. v. DIT

Director of Income Tax vs. M/S Mitusi & Co. Ltd

ITA/13/2005HC Delhi27 Jul 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 133Section 143Section 260A

…w of the mandate of the RBI, there was no question of on any business or trade being carried on in the LO. 26. Mr Nagi submitted that the onus of showing existence of PE lay on the Revenue. Inter alia, reliance was placed on a decision Northern Network v. DIT 386 ITR 353 Del. He pointed out that during 30 years of the Assessee's functioning, the RBI has not found the LO to have violated any of the conditions on which, the Assessee was permitted to run such LO. Mr Nagi pointed out that the Survey conducted by the Revenue was not relevant to AYs 1994-95 and 1995-96. Lastly, he pointed out that no ground that the im…