R&B Falcon Offshore Ltd. v. Addl CIT

42 SOT 432Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#24927 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Judgments citing R&B Falcon Offshore Ltd. v. Addl CIT

M/S. Linklaters, Mumbai vs. The DDIT (It) 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3280/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelinklaters V. Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent) Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) V. Linklaters Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 44C

…ubmitted that article 5(1) and 5(2) have to be read together and, unless the requirements of article 5(1) are met, a permanent establishment cannot be said to exist. Similar view is taken by the Hon'ble Tribunal in R&B Falcon Offshore Ltd. vs. Addl CIT [2010] 42 SOT 432 (Del), wherein, while interpreting the scope of article 5(2)(j) of India-USA DTAA, i.e., installation PE, it was held as under: "9. Then, there is a question-whether, the assessee had PE under any provision other than Article 5(2)(j). The case of the ld DR is based solely on the Mumbai address of the assessee mentioned in agreement with Petrom SA.…

DDIT (It)-4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Linklaters, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3039/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelinklaters V. Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent) Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) V. Linklaters Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 44C

…ubmitted that article 5(1) and 5(2) have to be read together and, unless the requirements of article 5(1) are met, a permanent establishment cannot be said to exist. Similar view is taken by the Hon'ble Tribunal in R&B Falcon Offshore Ltd. vs. Addl CIT [2010] 42 SOT 432 (Del), wherein, while interpreting the scope of article 5(2)(j) of India-USA DTAA, i.e., installation PE, it was held as under: "9. Then, there is a question-whether, the assessee had PE under any provision other than Article 5(2)(j). The case of the ld DR is based solely on the Mumbai address of the assessee mentioned in agreement with Petrom SA.…

Amadeus Global Travel Distribution Sa, Spain vs. ADIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 1494/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiamadeus Global Travel Vs. Adit, Distribution Sa Circle-1(1), (Now Known As Amadeus It International Taxation, Group Sa), New Delhi Salvador De Madariaga, E- 28027, Madrid, Spain Pan: Aafca9629P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 80HSection 9

…of the appellant, so that they know whom and where to contact, if they face any problem or require support in relation to the CRS system. Reference is made to the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of R&B Falcon Offshore Limited vs. ACIT: 42 SOT 432,wherein the Tribunal held that it has to be shown from the facts on record that business of the non-resident appellant is wholly or partly carried on through the office in order to hold such office to be constituting PE of the non-resident appellant. The existence of an office, per se, would not constitute PE of the assessee in India. Amadeus Glob…

R&B Falcon Offshore Ltd. v. Addl CIT (42 SOT 432) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax