“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

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Allsec Technologies Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1255/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1255/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1662/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit M/S. Allsec Technologies Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1(1), 560, 562, 7H Century Plaza, Vs. Chennai. Teynampet, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aacca-5106-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) - Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 & 2011-12 Has Common Issues. First We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2010-11 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 31-01-2019 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Novatel Ltd. However, no TDS was deducted against the same on the ground that the recipient did not have any business connection or permanent establishment in India. In such a case, there would be no TDS liability u/s 195. However, Ld. AO referred to Explanation ... submission on the question that the transaction is only a service and hence the consideration is not royalty, no arguments are made on permanent establishment or on the effect of the amendments. The assessee had submitted a detailed written submission on the clauses in the agreement and on the legal

F.C.C. Co. Ltd., Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax), Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, D Block, Civic Center, New Delhi

ITA 819/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrafcc Co. Ltd. Vs. Acit (It), Circle (1)(3)(1) Plot No. 5, Sector 3, D Block, Civic Centre, Imt Manesar, Gurgaon, New Delhi Haryana 122001 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcf5381M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Khimta, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Surbhi Sharma, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 153

facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/DRP has erred in alleging the existence of a Permanent Establishment ('PE') in the nature of a fixed place PE and supervisory PE under the Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') between India and Japan ... order dated 19/04/2023 vide 766/Del/2022 for AY 2020-21. It was submitted that finding of the Revenue Authorities holding existence of fixed Place Permanent Establishment or Supervisory Permanent Establishment were reversed, however, Ld. DRP has followed its own findings for earlier years. Ld. DR could not dispute the aforesaid facts

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(1) Intl.Taxation, Delhi vs. Hcl Technologies Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1392/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Surbhi Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

India since no technical knowledge, experience, skill, knowhow or process is made available by the foreign AEs to the Assessee and in absence of Permanent Establishment of the foreign AEs in India, payments received by them could not be brought to tax in India even as per the applicable DTAA

Natwest Markets Plc, Kolkata vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 273/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Natwest Markets Plc Income Tax 907, Regus, 9Th Floor, Ps Arcadia, 4A, Abanindra Nath Aaykar Bhavan, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Thakur Sarani, Kolkata, West 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata, Bengal-700016 West Bengal 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct8020E Assessee By : Shri Parcy Pardiwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Parcy Pardiwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR

Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 244A

This entity used to file its tax returns in India in respect of the profit that were attributable to its activities of the permanent establishment in India as well as in respect of other income which accrued or arose to it in India. Pursuant to an appeal effect order passed ... said foreign entity used to file its return of income in India qua the income that are attributable to the activities of the permanent establishment in India as well as in respect of its income which accrued or rose in India. While giving appeal effect

Schindler China Elevator Company Limited, China vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Int Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 4661/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanschindler China Elevator Vs. The Assistant Company Limited Commissioner Of Income C/O. Bansi S. Mehta & Co. Merchant Tax, Int Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Chamber, 3Rd Floor, 41, New Marine Mumbai Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Room No. 1708, 17Th Floor, Air Pan: Aascs8166L India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 2(31)Section 9(1)(i)

Indo-China DTAA (‘the DTAA"). It was also explained that according to Article 7 of the DTAA, only those profits which are attributable to Permanent Establishment of the enterprise in India are chargeable to tax in India. Therefore, in the absence of Permanent Establishment, no profits can be said ... chargeable to tax in India. The assessee claimed that it does not have any permanent establishment in India and therefore, no part of income earned by Assessee can be taxed in India by virtue of the provisions of Article 7 of the DTAA. 3. The Assessing Officer vide draft assessment

Shell International B.V., Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Circle (International Taxation-1), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground No. 10 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 688/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT DR

Section 153

considered as royalty or FTS and hence, no TDS was required to be deducted. It was found that US Company did not have any permanent establishment in India. Further Tribunal in its order had noted that scope of work was to generate customer leads using/subscribing customer data base, market research

DCIT (It) -3.1.2, Income Tax Office, Kautiliya Bhawan vs. Linklaters and Paines, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the department is accordingly dismissed having become infructuous

ITA 5116/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhandcit (It) 3.1.2 Vs. Linklaters & Paines Room No.603, 6Th Floor, Kautilya C/O – Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Bhavan, Mumbai – 400051. Tower 3, 28Th - 30Th Floor, Indiabulls Finance Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai. Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 250Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

Justified in holding that the income of the assessee is not taxable in India as it is not having any permanent establishment in term of Article — 5(2)(k)(i), without considering that the receipts of the assessee is fees for technical services as per meaning of section

Dbs Bank Ltd (Dbs Bank Ltd., India Branches Now Converted Into Dbs Bank India Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int Txt)-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3691/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala/Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Permpurna, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)Section 44C

disallowance of interest of Rs. 46,65,45,531/- paid to Head office without appreciating the fact that interest payable by the Indian Permanent establishment of the Foreign Bank to its HO and other overseas branches is not deductible expenses in computing the total income." I.T.A. No. 3691/Mum/2023 I.T.A

Dae Won Kang Up Co Ltd, Tiruvallur vs. DCIT International Taxation - 1(1), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1446/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1446/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dae Won Kang Up Co Limited Dcit C/O. Daewon India Autoparts Private Ltd. International Taxation-1(1) बनाम/ Survey No.477 & 489, No.99, Chennai. Vs. Papparambakkam Village, Tiruvalluvar Tk.- 602 025. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcd-7280-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. M.S. Vasan (Advocate) & Dr. Divya Abhishek (Ca) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024

For Appellant: Dr. M.S. Vasan (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

assessee also stated that this income is not taxable in India as Business income in view of Article-7 which mandate existence of a permanent establishment of non-resident company in India. In such a case, Ld. AO could not resort to other income clause as held ... treaty which postulate taxation of such income in contracting state unless the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein. The same is not the case here. Therefore, considering the impugned fee as business income, the same is not liable to be taxed

Cheran Machines India Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corp Circle -1, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1039/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1039/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Cheran Machines India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit 142/3, Main Road, Bharathi Street, Corporate Circle-1 बनाम Chinnavedempatti, Coimbatore. / Vs. Udayampalayam Main Road, Coimbatore-641 049. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-3388-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendran (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms.R. Anita (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendran (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anita (Addl.CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)

submitted that it exported goods directly to respective parties. Shri PGDA Krishantha had business place at Sri Lanka and it did not have any Permanent Establishment (PE) / business connection in India. He was looking after overall supervision of imported machinery and maintenance part of machinery at Sri Lanka

Rockwell Collins, Inc., United States of America vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2410/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmarockwell Collins Vs. Dcit, Southeast Asia Pte Ltd, Circle-3(1)(1), 18, Loyang Lane, Delhi 508918, Singapore, Singapore (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aajcr7985R Rockwell Collins Inc, Vs. Dcit, 400, Collins Rd Ne, Circle-3(1)(1), Cedar Rapids, Ia 52498, Delhi United States Of America, Usa,52498 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aajcr7883E

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Ms. C. Chandra Kanta, CIT DR

Section 9(1)(vii)

case of BHEL-GE-Gas Turbine Servicing Pvt. Ltd reported in 24 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd Trib). The assessee also pleaded that it has no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Hence, the payment received towards repairs and maintenance of aircraft would fall at best under the category of works contract constituting

Rockwell Collins Southeast Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Civic Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2409/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Ms. C. Chandra Kanta, CIT DR

Section 9(1)(vii)

Fujitsu Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2607/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshfujitsu Ltd, Vs. Acit, 3Rd Floor, Building No. 9B, Circle-1(3)(1), Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon, International Taxation, Haryana New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacf7231M Assessee By : Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv Ms. Shruti Khimta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, Cit Dr Shri Shankar Lal Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2024

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 197

obligation and hence the same represents business income of the assessee which could not be brought to tax in India in the absence of permanent establishment in India and Rs. 2,80,03,480/- being part of Rs. 35,77,10,655/- being separately offered to tax as interest

Mma Offshore Asia Vessel Operations Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. CIT (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai

ITA 2567/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi/Punit Lohiya, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, D/R

Section 142(1)Section 195Section 263

States shall be taxable only in that State unless the enterprise carries on business in the other 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 of them ... directly or indirectly attributable to that permanent establishment." As per the above Article, the business profits earned by MMASV shall be liable to tax in India only if it carries on business in India through a Permanent Establishment ('PE') in India and the profits earned by it in India

Mma Offshore Asia Vessel Operations Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. CIT (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai

ITA 2566/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi/Punit Lohiya, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, D/R

Section 142(1)Section 195Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

Delta Air Lines, Inc, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 235/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshdri / Ms. Amulya

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234B

booking of air passenger tickets and air freight in India, with the approval of the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”), which is an admitted Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India. The income of the assessee consists of - (i) Where the transportation is undertaken entirely through the Assessee’s own aircrafts

Tricentis Gmbh, Austria vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International-Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated above

ITA 3526/DEL/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: BEFORESHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B

cannot be doubted. Thus, he submitted, the assessee is entitled to avail treaty benefits under which business income is not taxable in absence of Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. 17. Without prejudice, he submitted, even the business income cannot be taxed under the domestic law in terms of section

Tricentis Gmbh, Austria vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2705/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: BEFORESHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B

Ge Hydro France, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle Int.Tax. 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1881/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2020-21] Ge Hydro France, Deputy Commissioner Of Income A-18, 1St Floor, Okhla Tax, Industrial, Phase-Ii, Vs Circle International Tax-1(3)(1), Tehkhand, South East Delhi, Civic Centre, Okhla Industrial Estate S.O. New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aafca1688N Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv. & Shri Arpit Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr & Ms.Sabiha Rizvi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.11.2024

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 44B

subject assessment year. 8. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in arbitrarily holding that there exists Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment ("PE") of the Appellant in India. 9. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in arbitrarily holding that there exists Fixed ... fixed place and dependent agent PE (DAPE) at and through GE Power India Ltd. (GEPIL) and therefore the existence of the assessee’s permanent establishment is an uncontested fact. 2.3 In view of these facts, the AO held that the untaxed receipts of Rs. 89,83,97,717 as income

Daechang Seat Co Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, International Taxation 1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1301/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1301/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Daechang Seat Co Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 491, Mannur Village, Valarpuram V. Income Tax, Post, Sriperumbudur Tk, International Taxation 1(1), Kancheepuram District – 602 105. Chennai. [Pan: Aadcd-4448-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Shreyansh Kumar Kochar, Ca : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Shreyansh Kumar Kochar, CA

Section 143(1)Section 250

Korea DTAA. :-7-: ITA. No: 1301/Chny/2023 c) The guarantee fees would fall under the nature of business profits. As Daechang does not have a permanent establishment in India, the same would not be taxable in India. d) Without prejudice to the above, if the guarantee fees are considered as "Other ... classifiable as "Business profits” under Article 7 of the India-Korea DTAA. The taxability under this article is based on the presence of a Permanent Establishment ('PE') as defined under Article 5 of the India-Korea DTAA. 7.3 Article 5 of the India-Korea DTAA explains the PE as follows