← 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

Atul Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 38/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

considering same as "fees for technical services" ignoring fact that said testing were done out of India and payee does not have any permanent establishment in India and it is not fees for technical services. Tax Effect: Rs. 85,250/- Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete ... Panel (DRP), the assessee submitted that the testing services were performed entirely outside India and the non- resident recipient had no business connection or permanent establishment in India. It was contended that the payment did not constitute income chargeable to tax in India and hence no obligation to deduct

DCIT(It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Murex Southeast Asia Private Limited, Singapore

In the result, this issue is passed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1296/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1296/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year 2015-16) (Assessment Year 2017-18) Dcit(It) – 3(2)(2), Room No.614, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, ............... Appellant Maharashtra - 400051 V/S Murex Southeast Asia Private Ltd. 10, Marina Bay Financial Centre, ……………… Respondent Tower – 2, Marina Boulevard, 19-01, Singapore Pan : Aaicm4006F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain Revenue By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar JainFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 9(1)

erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of the India-Singapore DTAA, that the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India under Article 5 when clearly the assessee's case is that of Maintenance services and training services receipts covered under Article ... support services, assistance provided by the assessee to the Indian customers. Apart from that, another very important fact is that there is no permanent establishment or any maintenance team of the company in India. Indian customers have in-house support team which is required to understand the source / requirements from

DCIT(It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Murex Southeast Asia Private Limited, Singapore

In the result, this issue is passed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1295/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1296/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year 2015-16) (Assessment Year 2017-18) Dcit(It) – 3(2)(2), Room No.614, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, ............... Appellant Maharashtra - 400051 V/S Murex Southeast Asia Private Ltd. 10, Marina Bay Financial Centre, ……………… Respondent Tower – 2, Marina Boulevard, 19-01, Singapore Pan : Aaicm4006F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain Revenue By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar JainFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 9(1)

erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of the India-Singapore DTAA, that the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India under Article 5 when clearly the assessee's case is that of Maintenance services and training services receipts covered under Article ... support services, assistance provided by the assessee to the Indian customers. Apart from that, another very important fact is that there is no permanent establishment or any maintenance team of the company in India. Indian customers have in-house support team which is required to understand the source / requirements from

DCIT(It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Murex Southeast Asia Private Limited, Singapore

In the result, this issue is passed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1294/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1296/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year 2015-16) (Assessment Year 2017-18) Dcit(It) – 3(2)(2), Room No.614, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, ............... Appellant Maharashtra - 400051 V/S Murex Southeast Asia Private Ltd. 10, Marina Bay Financial Centre, ……………… Respondent Tower – 2, Marina Boulevard, 19-01, Singapore Pan : Aaicm4006F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain Revenue By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar JainFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 9(1)

erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of the India-Singapore DTAA, that the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India under Article 5 when clearly the assessee's case is that of Maintenance services and training services receipts covered under Article ... support services, assistance provided by the assessee to the Indian customers. Apart from that, another very important fact is that there is no permanent establishment or any maintenance team of the company in India. Indian customers have in-house support team which is required to understand the source / requirements from

Sohan Lal Singla, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the grounds

ITA 711/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraasian Honda Motor Co. Vs. Dcit, Ddit/Adit Ltd., No.14, Sarasin (International Tax) Building, Surasak Road, Room No. 602, 6Th Floor, Khwaeng, Silom Khet Aayakar Bhawan, A-2D, Bangrak, Bangkok Sector 24, Gautam Budh Metropolis, Nagar, Noida, Thailand, 10500 Uttar Pradesh – 201307 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaica2531P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

absence of FTS article in India- Thailand DTAA, such income is taxable as business profits; however in the absence Permanent Establishment (PE) the same would not be taxable in India. However, during the course of assessment proceedings itself notice was issued upon M/s Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India (hereinafter referred ... absence of FTS clause in India- Thailand DTAA, service receipts would fall under Article 7 relating to business profits and in the absence of Permanent Establishment ('PE') of the assessee in India, such receipts are not chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee. The other ground of objections

International Air Transport Association, Mumbai (for Sending Notices) vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3330/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3330/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) International Air V/S. Dcit (It), Circle 2(2)(1), Transport Association बिधम Mumbai C/O Ernst & Young Llp Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Air India Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Dadar (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400021 Maharashtra-400028 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacci4695N Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka and Shri DiveshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Ground No. 2 - Provision of distance learning courses a. Erred in treating the Authorized Training Centers ('ATCs') to be the dependent agent Permanent Establishment ('PE') of the Appellant in India under Article 5(4) of the India -Canada Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('tax treaty) and accordingly, taxing the revenues ... India-Canada tax treat, which reads as under: "5. An enterprise of a Contracting State shall not be deemed to have a permanent establishment in the other Contracting State merely because it carries on business in that other State through a broker, general commission agent, or any other agent

Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Intl, Tax 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1240/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T.Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1240/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aban Offshore Limited, 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Pan: Aaaca 3012H (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. International Taxation 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16, Dated 13.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Fact That The Order Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 13.03.2024 Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant :-2-:

Section 115ASection 195(2)Section 250Section 44BSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90

resident are chargeable to tax in India. In the present case payment are made to non-residents/ foreign companies not having any permanent establishment in India, Income of non-residents/foreign companies are not chargeable to tax in India as per Article 7 read with Article 5 of Double

Roto World Fze, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, CPC, Banglore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 491/AHD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI T.R SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154

upholding the order u/s.154 on intimation u/s.143(1) passed by learned AO, CPC taxing consultancy income of the Appellant, who is not having permanent establishment in India, at 40% plus applicable surcharge and education cess instead of granting treaty benefits as claimed under provisions of Article 7 of the India ... India as per Article 7 of DTAA treating the same as business income and taxable in UAE only as the company had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The return of income was processed u/s.143(1) and intimation dated 10.06.2019 has issued by the DCIT, CPC wherein gross total income

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incomet Tax. Circle- Ltu -2, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1678/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C NareshFor Respondent: ShriKrishna Kumar SR. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 90

above letter, the assessee filed the following reply as per its letter dated 26.03.2018. "The Bank carries on business in the said branches through permanent establishment situated therein. The Profits earned from the said branches constitute business income. As per Article 7 of DTAA between GOI & Govt. of respective countries ... business income earned by these permanent establishment can be taxed only in those countries and accordingly since the profit as per the PIL Included the profit of these permanent establishment also, the same was reduced from taxable Income." From the above submissions it can be clearly concluded exclusion of foreign

ACIT., Circle-1, Agra vs. M/S Dawar Foodwear Industries, Agra

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 433/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 433/Agr/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) बनाम/ Acit-Circle-1, M/S. Dawar Footwear Industries Agra. 53, T.P. Nagar, Agra. Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafd-6003-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Agra [Cit(A)] On 31-03-2015 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 18-03- 2013. Both Sides Made Vehement Arguments. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed- Off As Under. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is Deletion Of Disallowance U/S 40(A)(I) Against Foreign Commission Payments & Sample & Development Charges As Paid By The Assessee To Non- Resident Entities. The Assessee Derived Income From Manufacturing & Trading Of Footwear.

For Appellant: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9

managerial and technical services. No part of services was rendered in India. None of the payee was stated to be having any permanent establishment in India. However, Ld. AO made disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) for Rs.288.47 Lacs. The assessee also paid sample design development expenses to foreign parties which

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. E I D Parry India Limited, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3251/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

export commitment and would not fall within the definition of Fees for Technical Services and cannot be taxed in India in the absence of permanent establishment. Accordingly, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹.55,97,827/- made under section

M/S. Eid Parry India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu-1, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3113/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

export commitment and would not fall within the definition of Fees for Technical Services and cannot be taxed in India in the absence of permanent establishment. Accordingly, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹.55,97,827/- made under section

United Overseas Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3486/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: 09.04.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 153Section 270ASection 37Section 44C

incorporated in Singapore and caries on banking activities in India through its Branch in India. The Indian branches of the assessee are treated as Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee and income arising there from is offered to tax in India. The assessee filed a return of income ... Contracting State shall be taxable only in that State unless the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein. If the enterprise carries on business as aforesaid, the profits of the enterprise may be taxed in the other State but only so much

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)_4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 3317/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

that the payment received by SIPCL is chargeable to tax in India and the declaration provided by SIPCL that it does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article 5 of DTAC, we rule that the applicant is under obligation to withhold tax under section ... reached an erroneous conclusion that the services availed are technical services. 25. Moreover, the AAR has not dealt with the issue relating to the 'Permanent Establishment' of SIPCL and there is no determination on the same. Of course, that was not a subject of reference before AAR. 26. Thus

Shell International Petroleum Company Limitedium, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 995/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

that the payment received by SIPCL is chargeable to tax in India and the declaration provided by SIPCL that it does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article 5 of DTAC, we rule that the applicant is under obligation to withhold tax under section ... reached an erroneous conclusion that the services availed are technical services. 25. Moreover, the AAR has not dealt with the issue relating to the 'Permanent Establishment' of SIPCL and there is no determination on the same. Of course, that was not a subject of reference before AAR. 26. Thus

Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 2307/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

that the payment received by SIPCL is chargeable to tax in India and the declaration provided by SIPCL that it does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article 5 of DTAC, we rule that the applicant is under obligation to withhold tax under section ... reached an erroneous conclusion that the services availed are technical services. 25. Moreover, the AAR has not dealt with the issue relating to the 'Permanent Establishment' of SIPCL and there is no determination on the same. Of course, that was not a subject of reference before AAR. 26. Thus

M/S. Shell Interational Petroleum Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1244/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

that the payment received by SIPCL is chargeable to tax in India and the declaration provided by SIPCL that it does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article 5 of DTAC, we rule that the applicant is under obligation to withhold tax under section ... reached an erroneous conclusion that the services availed are technical services. 25. Moreover, the AAR has not dealt with the issue relating to the 'Permanent Establishment' of SIPCL and there is no determination on the same. Of course, that was not a subject of reference before AAR. 26. Thus

M/S Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (It)- 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7499/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Respondent)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

that the payment received by SIPCL is chargeable to tax in India and the declaration provided by SIPCL that it does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article 5 of DTAC, we rule that the applicant is under obligation to withhold tax under section ... reached an erroneous conclusion that the services availed are technical services. 25. Moreover, the AAR has not dealt with the issue relating to the 'Permanent Establishment' of SIPCL and there is no determination on the same. Of course, that was not a subject of reference before AAR. 26. Thus

ACIT(It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Munchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft in Munchen, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5094/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala / Jeet Kamdar
Section 37Section 40Section 44CSection 9(1)(vii)

make, if it were a distinct and separate enterprise and that the expenses which are incurred for the purposes of the business of permanent establishment including executive and general administrative expenses is to be allowed as a deduction. The ld AR submitted that the fiction created under article ... Contracting State shall be taxable only in that State unless the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein. If the enterprise carries on business as aforesaid, the profits of the enterprise may be taxed in the other State but only so much

ACIT(It)-3(2)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Munchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft in Munchen, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5093/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala / Jeet Kamdar
Section 37Section 40Section 44CSection 9(1)(vii)

make, if it were a distinct and separate enterprise and that the expenses which are incurred for the purposes of the business of permanent establishment including executive and general administrative expenses is to be allowed as a deduction. The ld AR submitted that the fiction created under article ... Contracting State shall be taxable only in that State unless the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein. If the enterprise carries on business as aforesaid, the profits of the enterprise may be taxed in the other State but only so much