← 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

G E Energy Parts Inc., Usa vs. ACIT Circle-1(13)(1) Internationaltaxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 2033/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Energy Parts Inc., Vs. Acit, C/O-Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, Circle 1(13)(1), Jaypee Wishtown, International Taxation, Sector 128, New Delhi Noida Pan :Aaccg2798N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ge Global Parts & Products Vs. Acit, Gmbh, Circle 1(3)(1), Plot No. 1-14, Tower 5, International Taxation, Jaypee Wishtown, New Delhi Sector 128, Noida Pan :Aagcg3668K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

consolidated order. Though, multiple issues have been raised in these appeals, however, the major controversy is with regard to existence or otherwise of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Once this controversy gets resolved, other issues may either become academic or redundant. Therefore, at the outset, we proceed to address

We Are Voices Entertainment Inc, Gurgaon vs. DCIT International Taxation 3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1474/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 234ASection 270A

well as under the India-US tax treaty, erred in not holding that these service revenues cannot be taxed in absence of Permanent Establishment in India. 5 Without prejudice, that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO has erred in holding that receipts ... DTAA”) as against the claim of the assessee that it is ‘business profit’ not chargeable to tax in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) of the assessee in India. On filing objection before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) the Ld. DRP vide its order dated

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Alnoor Exports, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4595/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 4595/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, M/S. Alnoor Exports, बनाम C/O. M/S. Rohit Malik & Vs. Associates, Circle : 32 (1) 1403, Chiranjeev Tower, New Delhi. 43 - Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019. Pan No. Aacfa2599N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: Advocate
Section 195

commission paid to agents located outside India for procuring orders from buyers were all I.T.A. No. 4595/Del/2015 located outside India and not having permanent establishment in India. The provisions of section 195 of the Act were not applicable on the commission paid by the assessee as the same ... 195/40(a)(i) on payments made to organizations located outside India as participation charges for trade fairs/exhibitions held outside India and not having any permanent establishment in India. As already discussed in Ground No.1, payments to organizations located outside India and not having permanent establishment in India are not covered

Relx Inc, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward International Taxation-3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1085/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Basanta, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

from customers worldwide including India, by providing access to the on-line database. It does not have a fixed place of business or a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India. Accordingly, the assessee claimed that the subscription fee received for providing access to the database was in the nature of business ... Assessee’s data base is in the nature of business profit, therefore, the same is not taxable in India as the assessee has no permanent establishment in India. By respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Elsevier Information System GmbH (supra

ACIT (It) 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2190/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Porus KakaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 195Section 2Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

where tax treaty provisions are applicable, such charges being in the nature of business income are not taxable in India in the absence of permanent establishment in India of the relevant overseas bank as per Article 5 read with Article 7 of the relevant tax treaty. In view

Hitachi, Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation 2(1) (1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals being ITA no

ITA 2260/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[A.Y.: 2018-19] & [A.Y.: 2019-20]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 270A

income of Rs. 50,42,981/- in relation to contracts with DFCCIL for Offshore Supply of equipment, is directly attributable to the assesse’s Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and consequently taxable in India. 3(b) That the Learned ACIT and DRP have erred on facts ... income of Rs. 90,55,226/- in relation to contracts with DFCCIL for Offshore Supply of equipment, is directly attributable to the assessee’s Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and consequently taxable in India. 3(b) That the Learned ACIT and DRP have erred on facts

Hitachi, Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation.2(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals being ITA no

ITA 2259/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[A.Y.: 2018-19] & [A.Y.: 2019-20]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 270A

income of Rs. 50,42,981/- in relation to contracts with DFCCIL for Offshore Supply of equipment, is directly attributable to the assesse’s Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and consequently taxable in India. 3(b) That the Learned ACIT and DRP have erred on facts ... income of Rs. 90,55,226/- in relation to contracts with DFCCIL for Offshore Supply of equipment, is directly attributable to the assessee’s Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and consequently taxable in India. 3(b) That the Learned ACIT and DRP have erred on facts

Air France, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1004/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

received ; a system of credits has been created for IATP members. (iv) British Airways has a branch office in India, which constituted a permanent establishment (“PE”) in India, and, therefore, the income derived from permanent establishment in India was taxable as the same was not covered under the double taxation ... from the public at large and not from rendering of services to the head office. Thus, the assessee company is not having any permanent establishment in India. Therefore, the observation of the Assessing Officer that the assessee company is having permanent establishment in India and hence income arrived in India

ACIT Circle-2(1), Ghaziabad vs. Manoj Raizada, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed

ITA 5/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18 & Co No. 28/Del/2021 Asstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Choudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 37(1)Section 46ASection 9

commission” payments made by him. The assessee replied thus: & CO No. 28/Del/2021 “.... The payee is non-resident in India and does not have any permanent establishment (PE) in India. He searches for the prospective customers for the payer in Australia and received commission in foreign currency as consideration

Michael Graves Design Group Inc., Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs i

ITA 6007/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 & Asstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)

done from USA and hence the fee received for doing the work was not taxable in India in the absence of there being a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) of the assessee in India. The Ld. AR relied on the decisions of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case ... emerged from the analysis of material available on record and the submissions of the rival sides are: (1) The assessee is not having any Permanent Establishment in India; (2) The services were rendered by Gensler from its office in San Francisco, USA, (3) There was no transfer of any technology

Michael Graves Design Group Inc., Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs i

ITA 7683/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 & Asstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)

done from USA and hence the fee received for doing the work was not taxable in India in the absence of there being a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) of the assessee in India. The Ld. AR relied on the decisions of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case ... emerged from the analysis of material available on record and the submissions of the rival sides are: (1) The assessee is not having any Permanent Establishment in India; (2) The services were rendered by Gensler from its office in San Francisco, USA, (3) There was no transfer of any technology

Ameriprise India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1198/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kamal Sawhney Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

employees together with their designations as on March 31, 2011.  Copy of tax residency certificate for CSM Executive Lodging LLC ("CSM").  Copy of No Permanent Establishment Certificate from CSM.  Copies of Form 15CAs, including the invoices raised by CSM on AIPL duly mentioning the names of the employees  Form 15CBs

Planetcast International Pte.Ltd, Singapure vs. ACIT, Circle1(1)(1) International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1832/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Vizaya Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

case, the payment received by the assessee has to be treated as business profits; hence, would not be taxable in absence of a permanent establishment in India. 45. In light of the above decisions, the facts of the case in hand clearly show that the assessee has provided Disaster Recovery ... assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.6,01,37,566/-, being business profits of the assessee attributable to the alleged permanent establishment (PE) in India. 15. Briefly, the facts relating to this issue are, in course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that in addition to sale of equipments

M/S. Bombardier Transportation Gmbh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 1390/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 144C(13)

consideration in the present appeal is whether the project office of the assessee and Bombardier Transportation India Ltd. (BTIL) would constitute fixed place Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee in India under Article 5 of India – Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee

Buro Happold Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1006/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleburo Happold Limited V. Acit (International Tax) C/O. Sudit K. Parekh & Co. Llp Circle – 1(3)(2) Urmi Estate – Tower A, 20Th Floor Room No. 1810, 18Th Floor 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013 Pan: Aabcb9239Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 90(2)

characterized as Business Income falling under Article 7 of the DTAA. Such business income shall not be taxable in India in the absence of Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee in India. The assessee also submitted that similar issue was decided in assessee’s favour ... DTAA covers only technical and consultancy services and hence the above services would be qualified as business income and in the absence of Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee in India, the said income shall not be considered as taxable in India as per India-UK DTAA Page

DCIT Circle-1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Aedas Pte. Ltd., Singapore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 716/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Aedas Pte. Ltd. International Taxation, 11-01, Keppel Towers, New Delhi. 10 Hoe Chiang Road, Singapore, Sg 089315, Foreign Singapore. Pan Aaica4878K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT- DR
Section 143(2)Section 144C(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

India-Singapore DTAA. 7.1 It is an undisputed fact that the assessee is a tax resident of Singapore and does not have a permanent establishment in India. Hence it has opted to be governed by the provisions of the India-Singapore DTAA being more beneficial to it. 8. Article

DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi vs. Spicejet Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2011-12 is partly

ITA 883/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5181/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम Spice Jet Limited, Addl. Cit 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iv, Vs. Range-9, Gurgaon, Haryana. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccr1459F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5153/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम Acit Spice Jet Ltd., Circle-24(1), Vs. 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iv, Room No.163, Gurgaon, Haryana. C.R. Building, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccr1459F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.879/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Dcit Spice Jet Ltd., Central Circle-01, Vs. 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iv, Room No.334, E-2, Gurgaon, Haryana. Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccr1459F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115J

DTAA shall apply to the extent they are beneficial. Under the DTAA the foremost consideration is whether the non-resident lessor has a permanent establishment (PE) in India as per Article 5 of the relevant. According to him, m leasing of an aircraft which is located in India ought ... resident of a Contracting State, carries on business in other Contracting State in which the royalties or fees for technical services arise through a permanent establishment situated therein, or performs in that other State independent personal services from a fixed base situated therein, and the right or property in respect

DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi vs. Spicejet Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2011-12 is partly

ITA 882/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5181/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम Spice Jet Limited, Addl. Cit 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iv, Vs. Range-9, Gurgaon, Haryana. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccr1459F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5153/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम Acit Spice Jet Ltd., Circle-24(1), Vs. 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iv, Room No.163, Gurgaon, Haryana. C.R. Building, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccr1459F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.879/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Dcit Spice Jet Ltd., Central Circle-01, Vs. 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iv, Room No.334, E-2, Gurgaon, Haryana. Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccr1459F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115J

DTAA shall apply to the extent they are beneficial. Under the DTAA the foremost consideration is whether the non-resident lessor has a permanent establishment (PE) in India as per Article 5 of the relevant. According to him, m leasing of an aircraft which is located in India ought ... resident of a Contracting State, carries on business in other Contracting State in which the royalties or fees for technical services arise through a permanent establishment situated therein, or performs in that other State independent personal services from a fixed base situated therein, and the right or property in respect

DCIT Central Circle-01, Delhi vs. Spicejet Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2011-12 is partly

ITA 879/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5181/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम Spice Jet Limited, Addl. Cit 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iv, Vs. Range-9, Gurgaon, Haryana. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccr1459F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5153/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम Acit Spice Jet Ltd., Circle-24(1), Vs. 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iv, Room No.163, Gurgaon, Haryana. C.R. Building, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccr1459F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.879/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Dcit Spice Jet Ltd., Central Circle-01, Vs. 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iv, Room No.334, E-2, Gurgaon, Haryana. Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccr1459F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115J

DTAA shall apply to the extent they are beneficial. Under the DTAA the foremost consideration is whether the non-resident lessor has a permanent establishment (PE) in India as per Article 5 of the relevant. According to him, m leasing of an aircraft which is located in India ought ... resident of a Contracting State, carries on business in other Contracting State in which the royalties or fees for technical services arise through a permanent establishment situated therein, or performs in that other State independent personal services from a fixed base situated therein, and the right or property in respect

Spicejet Limited, Haryana vs. DCIT Circle-24(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2011-12 is partly

ITA 669/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5181/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम Spice Jet Limited, Addl. Cit 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iv, Vs. Range-9, Gurgaon, Haryana. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccr1459F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5153/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम Acit Spice Jet Ltd., Circle-24(1), Vs. 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iv, Room No.163, Gurgaon, Haryana. C.R. Building, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccr1459F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.879/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Dcit Spice Jet Ltd., Central Circle-01, Vs. 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iv, Room No.334, E-2, Gurgaon, Haryana. Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccr1459F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115J

DTAA shall apply to the extent they are beneficial. Under the DTAA the foremost consideration is whether the non-resident lessor has a permanent establishment (PE) in India as per Article 5 of the relevant. According to him, m leasing of an aircraft which is located in India ought ... resident of a Contracting State, carries on business in other Contracting State in which the royalties or fees for technical services arise through a permanent establishment situated therein, or performs in that other State independent personal services from a fixed base situated therein, and the right or property in respect