← 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

Ge Energy Parts Inc, Wildwood Parkway Atlanta Ga Us vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3199/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2021-22]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 44BSection 9(1)(i)Section 90

order to avoid taxation in India. In doing so, (a) the Ld. AO/ DRP erred in holding that since the Appellant already has a Permanent Establishment ('PE') in India, the offshore supply of spare parts being part of a composite contract would also form part ... finding of his predecessor in Assessment Year 2020-21, involving identical fact and pattern and issues, to hold that the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and accordingly proceeded to attribute 10% of the receipts to the alleged PE in India. The DRP also confirmed the order

JCIT, Special Range-1, New Delhi vs. Axis Risk Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2920/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Anupama Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 40Section 40a

India - USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA") whichever was more beneficial to Ztek. Further, for the year under consideration Ztek did not had a Permanent Establishment ('PE') in India within the terms of Article 5 of the DTAA. (vi) Taxability of fee received/receivable as per the MSA in the hands ... resident of USA and is thus governed by the provisions laid down in India - USA DTAA. Besides, Ztek do not have any permanent establishment in India within the terms of Article 5 of the DTAA. The assessee further submits that ‘fee for included services’ provided under Article

ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Sheraton Overseas Management Corporation, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2392/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Amit AroraFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

assessee claimed that the receipts from Indian Hotel owners towards Centralized Services, are in the nature of business profit and in absence of Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) of the assessee in India such receipts are not taxable in terms of India-USA DTAA. Ld. AO, however, did not accept assessee ... nature of Royalty or fees for technical services. Further, it was accepted by the AO that appellant did not have a permanent establishment in India and hence the business income could not be brought to fox under Article 7 of India-USA DTAA. 5.8 Thus, following the orders of higher

Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 478/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharata.Y. 2017-18 & A.Y. 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Oman by attracting investments. We presume from our recent discussions with you that the Indian investors in the above Project would be setting up Permanent Establishment in Oman and that their equity investments in the Project would be effectively connected with such Permanent establishments. On the above presumption, we confirm ... that tax would be payable on dividend income earned by the Permanent Establishments of the Indian Investors, as it would form part of their gross income under Article 8, if not for the tax exemption provided under Article 8 (bis). As the introduction of Article 8 (bis) is to promote

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 30, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 477/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharata.Y. 2017-18 & A.Y. 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Oman by attracting investments. We presume from our recent discussions with you that the Indian investors in the above Project would be setting up Permanent Establishment in Oman and that their equity investments in the Project would be effectively connected with such Permanent establishments. On the above presumption, we confirm ... that tax would be payable on dividend income earned by the Permanent Establishments of the Indian Investors, as it would form part of their gross income under Article 8, if not for the tax exemption provided under Article 8 (bis). As the introduction of Article 8 (bis) is to promote

DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 1043/DEL/2023[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharata.Y. 2017-18 & A.Y. 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Oman by attracting investments. We presume from our recent discussions with you that the Indian investors in the above Project would be setting up Permanent Establishment in Oman and that their equity investments in the Project would be effectively connected with such Permanent establishments. On the above presumption, we confirm ... that tax would be payable on dividend income earned by the Permanent Establishments of the Indian Investors, as it would form part of their gross income under Article 8, if not for the tax exemption provided under Article 8 (bis). As the introduction of Article 8 (bis) is to promote

DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 1042/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharata.Y. 2017-18 & A.Y. 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Oman by attracting investments. We presume from our recent discussions with you that the Indian investors in the above Project would be setting up Permanent Establishment in Oman and that their equity investments in the Project would be effectively connected with such Permanent establishments. On the above presumption, we confirm ... that tax would be payable on dividend income earned by the Permanent Establishments of the Indian Investors, as it would form part of their gross income under Article 8, if not for the tax exemption provided under Article 8 (bis). As the introduction of Article 8 (bis) is to promote

Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Dublin (Ireland) vs. ACIT Circle 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

Accordingly, the additions made by the Ld. AO in the impugned case deserve to be deleted on the merit for the year under consideration. Thus, the grounds raised are allowed and appeal of asseessee ...

ITA 3672/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmastay Application No.52/Del/2024 (Ita No.3672/Del/2023) Assessment Year: 2021-22 & Assessment Year: 2021-22 Adobe Systems Software Ireland Vs Acit, Limited, Circle-1(1)(1), Dublin (Ireland), International Taxation, 4-6, Riverwalk, Citywest Business New Delhi. Campus, Saggart, Dublin 24, Ireland. Pan: Aahca7203M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate & Ms Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: Heard & Perused The Records. 2. The Stay Application In Hand Has Been Filed For The Stay Of Demand In Regard To Ay 2021-22 And, During The Course Of Argument, It Was Submitted By Ita No.52/Del/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)

assessment may not be completed on similar lines as earlier years wherein it was held that the Appellant has a permanent establishment (“PE”) in India. 3.4 Thereafter, the Ld. AO had passed a draft assessment order dated December 30, 2022(“impugned order”) under section 144C of the Act, wherein

Sabre Glbl Inc., New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle- 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6040/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 216/Del/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 559/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4838/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 7724/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 6040/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Sabre Glbl Inc. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Tax, Adv. Circle-3(1)(2), C/O. Ms Associates, International Tax F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sabre Glbl Inc. Income Tax, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. International Taxation, C/O. Ms Associates, New Delhi F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

India. It only avails of certain marketing support from branch office of its group company in India. Hence, the assessee does not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. In absence of a PE of the assessee in India, business income earned by assessee from its three business segments also ... proposing to assessee the total income at INR 28,941,670 holding that Sabre constitutes a ITA No. 216 & Ors. Sabre GLBL Inc. 4 permanent establishment (PE) in India and attributing total profits earned from booking fee originating from India to the PE. 4. Assessee went before DRP and filed

Sabre Glbl Inc., New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle- 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7724/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 216/Del/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 559/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4838/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 7724/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 6040/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Sabre Glbl Inc. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Tax, Adv. Circle-3(1)(2), C/O. Ms Associates, International Tax F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sabre Glbl Inc. Income Tax, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. International Taxation, C/O. Ms Associates, New Delhi F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

India. It only avails of certain marketing support from branch office of its group company in India. Hence, the assessee does not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. In absence of a PE of the assessee in India, business income earned by assessee from its three business segments also ... proposing to assessee the total income at INR 28,941,670 holding that Sabre constitutes a ITA No. 216 & Ors. Sabre GLBL Inc. 4 permanent establishment (PE) in India and attributing total profits earned from booking fee originating from India to the PE. 4. Assessee went before DRP and filed

Sabre Glbl Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 559/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 216/Del/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 559/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4838/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 7724/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 6040/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Sabre Glbl Inc. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Tax, Adv. Circle-3(1)(2), C/O. Ms Associates, International Tax F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sabre Glbl Inc. Income Tax, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. International Taxation, C/O. Ms Associates, New Delhi F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

India. It only avails of certain marketing support from branch office of its group company in India. Hence, the assessee does not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. In absence of a PE of the assessee in India, business income earned by assessee from its three business segments also ... proposing to assessee the total income at INR 28,941,670 holding that Sabre constitutes a ITA No. 216 & Ors. Sabre GLBL Inc. 4 permanent establishment (PE) in India and attributing total profits earned from booking fee originating from India to the PE. 4. Assessee went before DRP and filed

Sabre Glbl Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Circle- 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4838/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 216/Del/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 559/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4838/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 7724/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 6040/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Sabre Glbl Inc. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Tax, Adv. Circle-3(1)(2), C/O. Ms Associates, International Tax F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sabre Glbl Inc. Income Tax, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. International Taxation, C/O. Ms Associates, New Delhi F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

India. It only avails of certain marketing support from branch office of its group company in India. Hence, the assessee does not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. In absence of a PE of the assessee in India, business income earned by assessee from its three business segments also ... proposing to assessee the total income at INR 28,941,670 holding that Sabre constitutes a ITA No. 216 & Ors. Sabre GLBL Inc. 4 permanent establishment (PE) in India and attributing total profits earned from booking fee originating from India to the PE. 4. Assessee went before DRP and filed

Sabre Inc, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 216/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 216/Del/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 559/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4838/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 7724/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 6040/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Sabre Glbl Inc. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Tax, Adv. Circle-3(1)(2), C/O. Ms Associates, International Tax F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sabre Glbl Inc. Income Tax, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. International Taxation, C/O. Ms Associates, New Delhi F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

India. It only avails of certain marketing support from branch office of its group company in India. Hence, the assessee does not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. In absence of a PE of the assessee in India, business income earned by assessee from its three business segments also ... proposing to assessee the total income at INR 28,941,670 holding that Sabre constitutes a ITA No. 216 & Ors. Sabre GLBL Inc. 4 permanent establishment (PE) in India and attributing total profits earned from booking fee originating from India to the PE. 4. Assessee went before DRP and filed

DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi vs. M/S. Sabre Glbl Inc., Gurgaon

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6731/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 216/Del/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 559/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4838/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 7724/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 6040/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Sabre Glbl Inc. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Tax, Adv. Circle-3(1)(2), C/O. Ms Associates, International Tax F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sabre Glbl Inc. Income Tax, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. International Taxation, C/O. Ms Associates, New Delhi F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

India. It only avails of certain marketing support from branch office of its group company in India. Hence, the assessee does not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. In absence of a PE of the assessee in India, business income earned by assessee from its three business segments also ... proposing to assessee the total income at INR 28,941,670 holding that Sabre constitutes a ITA No. 216 & Ors. Sabre GLBL Inc. 4 permanent establishment (PE) in India and attributing total profits earned from booking fee originating from India to the PE. 4. Assessee went before DRP and filed

M/S Six Continents Hotels Inc., Gurgaon vs. The Dy CIT Circle-4(2)(1), International Taxation, Mumbai

ITA 6657/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: S/Shri S.K. Aggarwal a/w Siddesh Chaugule
Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

Air Liquide Global Ec Germany Gmbh, Germany vs. ACIT, Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the stay application is

ITA 2401/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 144C(13)Section 44B

services rendered by the assessee are covered under the provisions of section 44BB of the Act. He further observed that the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Accordingly, invoking the provisions of section 44BB of the Act, he treated 10% of the receipts from sale of equipment

Corning Sas India Branch Office, Haryana vs. DCIT/ACIT-Int-Tax, Haryana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 528/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat Kul Bharat Kul Bharatkul Bharat Shri Shri Shri

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshresth, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 270

under Article 12 of India-France DTAA; 2. erred in holding that the branch office in India would constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE') of Corning SAS in India for current year disregarding the fact that no business was being carried out from the aforesaid branch post 1 February ... India since February, 2012, the income in question, i.e., ‘interest on income- tax refund’ cannot be said to be “effectively connected with such permanent establishment”, and, therefore, it does not fall in the ambit of Paragraph 5 of Article 12 so as to be taxed as business profits in terms

New Skies Satellites B.V., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2944/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2020-21] New Skies Satellites B.V., Vs Dcit, C/O-Ernst & Young Llp, Golf Cirlce-2(2)(2), View Corporate Tower, Tower-B, International Taxation, Sector-42, Gurgaon, New Delhi. Haryana-122002. Pan-Aaccn1866C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Ananya Bajpayee, Adv. Respondent By Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, Cit Dr & Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 234ASection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

Appellant from providing data transmission services via Space Segment Capacity are assessable as business profits in India and in the absence of a Permanent Establishment under Article 5 of the India-Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Netherlands ('the DTAA'), the receipts earned by the Appellant

Nat West Markets Plc- India Branch, Kolkata vs. ACIT(I.T)-1(2), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1364/KOL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nat West Markets Plc-India Acit (I.T)-1(2), Kolkata Branch Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 2 Nd 907, Regus, 9Thfloor, Floor, Psarcadia,4A, Abandindra Nath Vs. 110, Shanti Pally, Thakur Sarani, Kolkata-700016, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct8020E Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kanujia, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kanujia, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44ASection 56Section 68

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

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - 4(1)(1), Mumbai, India

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3254/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Us, It Has Been Stated That This Issue Stands Covered By The Decision Of The Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case For The A.Y.2018-19 & 2019-20 Which Has Followed Earlier Three Tribunal Orders.

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 9

assessee does not have a business connection in India as per section 9 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act) or a Permanent Establishment as per Article 5 of the India-Ireland Treaty, the assessee filed its Return of Income under section 139 of the Act for the captioned ... bearing in mind the entirety of the case, we disapprove the stand of the authorities below, and hold that there was no fixed place permanent establishment on the facts of this case. As regards the existence of the dependent agency permanent establishment, that aspect of the matter, In the light