← All Phrases

“permanent establishment”

International TaxSection 9 / DTAA Article 5Section 9 / DTAA Article 51,497 judgments

The decision most relied on for permanent establishment is DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co. (292 ITR 416), cited in 360 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on permanent establishment

DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co.
292 ITR 416 · 2007 · Supreme Court
360
citing judgments

A Permanent Establishment (PE) signifies a foreign enterprise's virtual projection into another country, with a fixed place PE existing where an MNE's business is wholly or partly carried on. A dependent agent PE requires the agent to act as such and/or have the authority to conclude contracts for the foreign enterprise under DTAA provisions.

DIT v. Nokia Networks OY
358 ITR 259 · 2013 · High Court
276
citing judgments

Payments for the supply of software along with telecom equipment are not in the nature of royalty if they are for the use of a copyrighted article, not the copyright itself. Such payments are not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE).

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.
39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

ONGC v. CIT
376 ITR 306 · 2015 · Supreme Court
241
citing judgments

Income derived by a non-resident for services related to mineral oil operations, falling under the presumptive taxation regime of Section 44BB, cannot simultaneously be treated as fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii). The specific presumptive provisions override the general FTS definition, particularly when DTAA applies.

Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT
95 ITD 269 · 2005 · High Court
213
citing judgments

Revenue must demonstrate the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) of a foreign enterprise in India, including establishing that transactions underlying a Dependent Agent PE were not at arm's length. Income from the sale of goods is not taxable in India if title and risk in the goods pass outside India.

(i) Formula One World Championship Ltd. v. CIT
394 ITR 80 · 2017 · Supreme Court
200
citing judgments

This case provides foundational principles that illuminate the contours of the concept of 'Permanent Establishment' (PE) under tax treaties, especially regarding a 'fixed place' PE.

DIT v. Morgan Stanley Co. Inc.
399 ITR 34 · 2017 · Supreme Court
162
citing judgments

Once a transfer pricing analysis has been undertaken for an Indian associated enterprise, no further profits are attributable to it as a Permanent Establishment, thereby extinguishing the need for additional profit attribution.

Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT
24 ITR 506 · 1953 · Supreme Court
156
citing judgments

One cannot make a taxable profit or loss from transactions with oneself, as profit only arises from dealings with external third parties, even when transferring assets between different accounts or divisions of the same entity.

Judgments citing permanent establishment

Concentrix Cvg Customer Management Group Inc., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-1(2)(1)International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 1086/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

these employees of the assessee have the premise of CIS at their disposal. Thus, the Ld. AO/TPO has held that the assessee has Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) having fixed place. Further, it has been held by the Ld. AO/TPO that the CIS has practically a projection of the assessee’s business ... qualify as equipment royalty and process royalty in terms of the Article 12 of the DTAA; hence, the same was not taxable in India. Permanent Establishment (PE): 9. At the outset, Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Counsel representing the assessee submitted that the issue of PE was squarely covered

Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 7924/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

these employees of the assessee have the premise of CIS at their disposal. Thus, the Ld. AO/TPO has held that the assessee has Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) having fixed place. Further, it has been held by the Ld. AO/TPO that the CIS has practically a projection of the assessee’s business ... qualify as equipment royalty and process royalty in terms of the Article 12 of the DTAA; hence, the same was not taxable in India. Permanent Establishment (PE): 9. At the outset, Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Counsel representing the assessee submitted that the issue of PE was squarely covered

DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 130/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

these employees of the assessee have the premise of CIS at their disposal. Thus, the Ld. AO/TPO has held that the assessee has Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) having fixed place. Further, it has been held by the Ld. AO/TPO that the CIS has practically a projection of the assessee’s business ... qualify as equipment royalty and process royalty in terms of the Article 12 of the DTAA; hence, the same was not taxable in India. Permanent Establishment (PE): 9. At the outset, Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Counsel representing the assessee submitted that the issue of PE was squarely covered

Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 7727/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

these employees of the assessee have the premise of CIS at their disposal. Thus, the Ld. AO/TPO has held that the assessee has Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) having fixed place. Further, it has been held by the Ld. AO/TPO that the CIS has practically a projection of the assessee’s business ... qualify as equipment royalty and process royalty in terms of the Article 12 of the DTAA; hence, the same was not taxable in India. Permanent Establishment (PE): 9. At the outset, Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Counsel representing the assessee submitted that the issue of PE was squarely covered

Rangsons Schuster Technologies Private Limited, Mandya vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)& Tps, Mysore

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

ITA 1490/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Rangsons Schuster Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No.9, Hebbal Ii Nd Phase Viadb Circle – 1(1) & Tps, Industrial Area, Survey No.36, Belagolahobli, Mysore. Srirangapatna, H.O. Shrirangapattana, Mandya– 571 438,Karnataka. Pan : Aafcr 4493 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 195Section 195BSection 40

applicable to the assessee since the entire works were carried out outside India and there is no business connection and permanent establishment in India. Therefore, the income received out of India towards rendering of services is not taxable in India. Therefore, the said provision of section 195B ... Tubes Limited, Israel not being in the nature of technical or managerial services were rendered outside India and the vendor does not have any permanent-establishment or business connection in India. The profits of the services rendered outside India cannot be taxed in India unless the non-resident has permanent

ACIT(It)1.2.2 Mumbai, Bkc Mumbai vs. Bcd Travel Services Bv, Netherlands

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4240/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, Shri Hardik Nirmal and Ms. Tejal Saraf, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

DTAA, since business profits earned by a foreign company from operations in India are taxable in India only if, there is a permanent establishment (PE) of the foreign company in India. Thus, the business income of assessee would become taxable in India only if it had a PE in India

ACIT (It) 1.2.2 Mumbai, Bkc vs. Bcd Travel Services Bv, Netherlands

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4219/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, Shri Hardik Nirmal and Ms. Tejal Saraf, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

DTAA, since business profits earned by a foreign company from operations in India are taxable in India only if, there is a permanent establishment (PE) of the foreign company in India. Thus, the business income of assessee would become taxable in India only if it had a PE in India

Maersk Logistics & Services International A/S (Erstwhile, Damco International A/S), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax (It) Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1329/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kanth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115A(1)(b)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

accordance with Network Agreement dated 01/01/2013 (at page 3 of the paper book). The contentions of the assessee is that it does not have Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article -5 of India- Netherland DTAA. And by virtue of Article-7 of India - Netherland DTAA, network fees

DCIT., Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Satyam Venture Engineering Service Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1242/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1242/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dy. Cit Vs. Satyam Venture Central Circle 3(2) Engineering Service Hyderabad Private Limited Hyderabad Pan: Aafcs3287D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Ev Sri Krishna राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri T.V. Vamsidhar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14/06/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A), Hyderabad -11 For The A.Y.2022-23. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: CA EV Sri KrishnaFor Respondent: : Shri T.V. Vamsidhar, Sr. AR
Section 40

DTAA between India and Thailand does not contain any article on fee for technical services and further the recipient also did not have a permanent establishment (PE) in India, therefore, the said income is not chargeable to tax in India. The learned CIT (A) has allowed the claim

Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxn Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1217/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

also the statements obtained from the employees of the 'Dollar Team', the survey team was of the view that the assessee had a permanent establishment (in short 'PE') in India. On the basis of the findings of the survey team, it is noted that the case of the assessee ... brought to our notice that, the Competent Authorities categorically agreed to disagree on the question of existence of a permanent establishment of the assessee in India and agreed to set aside the same, and further agreed on the terms of resolution. It is noticed that, the Competent Authority at India

Redington Distributions Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxn Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1216/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

also the statements obtained from the employees of the 'Dollar Team', the survey team was of the view that the assessee had a permanent establishment (in short 'PE') in India. On the basis of the findings of the survey team, it is noted that the case of the assessee ... brought to our notice that, the Competent Authorities categorically agreed to disagree on the question of existence of a permanent establishment of the assessee in India and agreed to set aside the same, and further agreed on the terms of resolution. It is noticed that, the Competent Authority at India

M/S. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxn Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1215/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

also the statements obtained from the employees of the 'Dollar Team', the survey team was of the view that the assessee had a permanent establishment (in short 'PE') in India. On the basis of the findings of the survey team, it is noted that the case of the assessee ... brought to our notice that, the Competent Authorities categorically agreed to disagree on the question of existence of a permanent establishment of the assessee in India and agreed to set aside the same, and further agreed on the terms of resolution. It is noticed that, the Competent Authority at India

ACIT, Spl. Range-9, New Delhi vs. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7598/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

provided from outside India to the assessee company in India. 1.3 All overseas entities involved in rendering such services, do not have any permanent establishment In India in any manner. 2. The obligation of the remitter to deduct tax at source is casted in section 195 of the income

Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT Spl.Range-9, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7526/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Timex Group India Ltd. Additional Commissioner Of Income 106-107, Ambadeep Building, Tax, Special Range-9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Vs New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaact0773C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Additional Commissioner Of M/S Timex Group India Ltd. Income Tax, Special Range-9, 106-107, Ambadeep Building, New Delhi-110002 Vs Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaact0773C Revenue Assessee Assessee By Shri Tushar Jarwal, Adv. Shri Aayush Nagpal, Adv. & Shri Vikrant Maheshwari, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rohit Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

provided from outside India to the assessee company in India. 1.3 All overseas entities involved in rendering such services, do not have any permanent establishment In India in any manner. 2. The obligation of the remitter to deduct tax at source is casted in section 195 of the income

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1995/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker & Pranay Gandhi, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(i)

Indian cedents, the Appellant has a business connection in India as per the provisions of section 9(1)(i) of the Act and a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India as per Article 5 of the India-Singapore tax treaty (IS treaty) In this regard, the learned AO has additionally inter

Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5256/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendram Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80G

expatriate employees have been paid in India after deducting tax u/s 192 of the Act. Moreover, when SEC, Korea /AE is having no Permanent Establishment in India the expatriate employees were working under the control of taxpayer to carry out its business. Page 8 of 14 ITA No. 5256 & 3724/DEL/2024

Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3724/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendram Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80G

expatriate employees have been paid in India after deducting tax u/s 192 of the Act. Moreover, when SEC, Korea /AE is having no Permanent Establishment in India the expatriate employees were working under the control of taxpayer to carry out its business. Page 8 of 14 ITA No. 5256 & 3724/DEL/2024

Cochin International Airport Limited, Cochin vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Cochin

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 724/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR
Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

business income but could be taxed as such only if the entity has a Page 4 of 8 ITA Nos. 720 to 724/Coch/2023 permanent establishment in India. The Ld.CIT(A) had relied on the order of the Hon’ble Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case

Cochin International Airport Limited, Cochin vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Cochin

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 723/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR
Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

business income but could be taxed as such only if the entity has a Page 4 of 8 ITA Nos. 720 to 724/Coch/2023 permanent establishment in India. The Ld.CIT(A) had relied on the order of the Hon’ble Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case

Cochin International Airport Limited, Cochin vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Cochin

ITA 722/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, САFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR
Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

business income but could be taxed as such only if the entity has a Page 4 of 8 ITA Nos. 720 to 724/Coch/2023 permanent establishment in India. The Ld.CIT(A) had relied on the order of the Hon'ble Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case