← 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

Micro Focus Software Inc. (Formerly Known As Novell Inc.), Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT (Intl. Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 891/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

erred in holding that Micro Focus Software India Private Limited ["MFSIPL"] (formerly known as 'Novell Software Development India Private Limited') is a Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment ["DAPE"] of Micro Focus Software Inc. ["MFSI"] (formerly known as Novell Inc.) in India by misinterpreting and misunderstanding the "Principal to Principal" arrangement between ... no.891/Mum./2023 tax as per the DTAA between India and USA, in view of the claim of the assessee that there is no Permanent Establishment of the assessee in India. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 03/02/2021, declaring a total income

Nuovo Pignone International Srl, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 999/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19 Nuovo Pignone International Versus Dcit, Circle 2(2)(2), Srl, 6Th Floor, Building No. 7A, International Taxation, Standard Chartered Building, New Delhi Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon. Pan: Aabcg3212A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Virendra Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)

pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2 2. The major issue arising for consideration is, whether the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Rest of the issues raised by the assessee are ancillary and subsidiary to this issue. 3. Briefly, the facts

Qualcomm Incorporated, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7559/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

Total 441,51,15,880/- 4. Royalty income aggregating to Rs.59,35,000/- received from OEMs carrying on business in India through their Permanent Establishments (PEs) were offered to tax in India. Whereas, the royalty on subscriber units from OEMs outside India and royalty on infrastructure equipments received outside India ... entity is not merely the place of manufacturing the products. In our considered view, even a place where the entity has a permanent establishment is also a place where the assessee is carrying on its business inasmuch as the very definition of the permanent establishment, under the basic PE rule

Qualcomm Incorporated, Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7894/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

Total 441,51,15,880/- 4. Royalty income aggregating to Rs.59,35,000/- received from OEMs carrying on business in India through their Permanent Establishments (PEs) were offered to tax in India. Whereas, the royalty on subscriber units from OEMs outside India and royalty on infrastructure equipments received outside India ... entity is not merely the place of manufacturing the products. In our considered view, even a place where the entity has a permanent establishment is also a place where the assessee is carrying on its business inasmuch as the very definition of the permanent establishment, under the basic PE rule

Cma Cgm Sa, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 833/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal आअसं. 833/मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2020-21) Cma Cgm Sa C/O. Cma Cgm Agencies (India) Private Limited, Indiabulls Finance Centre, Tower -3, 8Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone(W), Mumbai – 400 013. Pan: Aabcc-9048-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) 2(1)(1)Mumbai Room No.1713, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Poojari & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : /06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 19/01/2023 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act], For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2 2. In Appeal The Assessee Has Raised 22 Grounds. The Gist Of Grounds Of Appeal Is As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Poojari &For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270

Taxability of Freight Charges for transportation of cargo through Feeder Vessels. Grounds No.12 to 14 – CMA CGA Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. – Whether Agency Permanent Establishment (PE)of the assessee in India. Ground No. 15-19 - Non-taxability of income in the nature of IT support services (FTS). Ground No.20 – Interest ... year are identical. For parity of reasons the ground No.7 to 11 of appeal are allowed. CMA CGA Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. – Whether Agency Permanent Establishment (PE)of the assessee in India. 8. We find that identical issue was raised in the appeal by assessee in ITA No.5998/Mum/2019. This issue

Smit Singapore Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Int Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 816/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/w Ms. Miti ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chandip Singh
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

receipt under section 44BB of the Act is also not triggered for the year under consideration since the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment in India. The AO also held that the vessel, Smit Borneo, is a crane barge which is industrial, scientific, and commercial equipment other than

Sapein Funds Ltd., Mauritius vs. CIT (International Taxation) Delhi-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

perused the material available on record. 4. Sapien Funds Limited (SFL) is incorporated and registered outside India according to law of Mauritius with permanent establishment in Mauritius and a Tax Residency in Mauritius, the Tax Residence Certificate in this regard has been provided to IT Authorities in India. The registered ... Nowrattan Bhurtun. All the named four personnel are residents of Mauritius. 6. The fund or the Management Company managing the fund have no permanent establishment in India. All substantive and material functioning relating to the fund and management company are carried and situated outside India along with the decision-making

DCIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bsr and Co. LLP, Mumbai

In the result ITA No. 723/Mum/2023 is dismissed, ITA No

ITA 723/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Soumendu Kumar Das, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ajit Kumar Jain CA &
Section 142(1)Section 40Section 90

nature of business profits under Article 7 of the respective tax treaties and are not taxable in India in the absence of permanent establishment of non – residents in India under Article 5 of the said tax treaties since services are not in nature of make available of technical knowledge, experience ... come under Article 12 dealing with ‘Fees for Technical Services’, rather they fall under Article 7 dealing with ‘Business Profits’ and there is no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, and therefore these payments would not be taxable in India. 8 ITA No. 724/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2015-16) ITA No. 726/Mum/2023

Baker Hughes Energy Technologies Uk Limited, United Kingdom vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 521/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2023AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 448Section 44B

void ab initio. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO erred in holding that the Appellant has a permanent establishment ("PE") in India under the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty 'DTAA"). 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO erred ... that the offshore manufacture and supply of equipment and parts to ONGC is not taxable in India since neither the assessee had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India nor 5 SA No.100/Del/2023 ITA No.521/Del./2023 could provisions of Section 44BB be applied to sale of equipment made from outside India

Vijayakumar Kanaiyalal Matta, Mumbai vs. ITO 26 (3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 53/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhvk-Vk-La- 52@Eaqcbz@2020 ¼Fu-Oa- 2013&14½ Vk-Vk-La- 53@Eaqcbz@2020 ¼Fu-Oa- 2014&15½ Vijaykumar Kanaiyalal Matta 8/B/104, 10Th Floor, S. S. Nagar, Sion Koliwada, Sion Mumbai-400 037 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aropm6060D Cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer – 26(3) (4) Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, B. K. C. Bandra (E), ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 051

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar Singh, Sr. AR
Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 69

recipient of such income, being a resident of a Contracting State, carries on business in the other Contracting State 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 of which ... income is paid is effectively connected with such permanent establishment or fixed base". Obviously, this has no application in the present situation either, but what it does highlight anyway is the economic activity nexus with the income, which can be taxed under Article 22(1). Of course, where revenue authorities

Vijayakumar Kanaiyalal Matta, Mumbai vs. ITO 26 (3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 52/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhvk-Vk-La- 52@Eaqcbz@2020 ¼Fu-Oa- 2013&14½ Vk-Vk-La- 53@Eaqcbz@2020 ¼Fu-Oa- 2014&15½ Vijaykumar Kanaiyalal Matta 8/B/104, 10Th Floor, S. S. Nagar, Sion Koliwada, Sion Mumbai-400 037 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aropm6060D Cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer – 26(3) (4) Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, B. K. C. Bandra (E), ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 051

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar Singh, Sr. AR
Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 69

recipient of such income, being a resident of a Contracting State, carries on business in the other Contracting State 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 of which ... income is paid is effectively connected with such permanent establishment or fixed base". Obviously, this has no application in the present situation either, but what it does highlight anyway is the economic activity nexus with the income, which can be taxed under Article 22(1). Of course, where revenue authorities

Country Inn & Suits by Raddison, Inn, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2) (1)International Taxation, Newdelhi

In the results, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2224/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

nature of royal or fees for technical services. It was accepted by the Ld. Assessing Officer that the appellant did not have a permanent establishment in India, and hence the business income could not be brought to tax under Article 7 of the India- USA DTAA, Moreover, no question

Radisson Hotels International Incorporated, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), International Taxation, Delhi

In the results, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2223/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

nature of royal or fees for technical services. It was accepted by the Ld. Assessing Officer that the appellant did not have a permanent establishment in India, and hence the business income could not be brought to tax under Article 7 of the India- USA DTAA, Moreover, no question

Radisson Hotel International Incorporated, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the results, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2222/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

nature of royal or fees for technical services. It was accepted by the Ld. Assessing Officer that the appellant did not have a permanent establishment in India, and hence the business income could not be brought to tax under Article 7 of the India- USA DTAA, Moreover, no question

Sis Live, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2146/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sis Live, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 4Th Floor, Statesman House Income Tax, Building, Barakhamba Road, Circle-3(1)(2), International Connaught Place, Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Abrfs4787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9

claimed by the Appellant, by alleging that the Appellant has no taxable business presence in India in the form of a Permanent Establishment (PE") or business connection during the year under consideration. 2.1. In doing so, the Learned AO has grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that the Project ... appeal. 3. As could be seen from the grounds raised, the core issue arising for consideration is whether the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India so as to entitle the assessee to claim certain expenses as well as other benefits. 4. Briefly the facts are, the assessee

Sis Live, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2145/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sis Live, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 4Th Floor, Statesman House Income Tax, Building, Barakhamba Road, Circle-3(1)(2), International Connaught Place, Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Abrfs4787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9

claimed by the Appellant, by alleging that the Appellant has no taxable business presence in India in the form of a Permanent Establishment (PE") or business connection during the year under consideration. 2.1. In doing so, the Learned AO has grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that the Project ... appeal. 3. As could be seen from the grounds raised, the core issue arising for consideration is whether the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India so as to entitle the assessee to claim certain expenses as well as other benefits. 4. Briefly the facts are, the assessee

Ubs Ag, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assesse are partly allowed

ITA 5122/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2261 & 5122/Mum/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14) Ubs Ag Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Level 3, 2 North Avenue Income Tax (It)-4(3)(1) Maker Maxity, Bandra Air India Building, Kurla Complex, Bandra Nariman Point East, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu5003G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Manoj Kumar
Section 234BSection 37(1)

During the previous year relevant to assessment year 2012-13, the assesse has a bank branch in India (Mumbai Branch) which has been a permanent establishment (PE) of the assessee. Further facts of the case are discussed while adjudicating the ground of appeal filed by the assessee. Ground ... International Transaction fees received for marketing of FIP) 3. During the year under consideration the Mumbai branch constitutes a Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee. The Mumbai branch operates in line with UBS group principles and policies of risk management which were aligned to local regulations wherever required

Ubs Ag, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assesse are partly allowed

ITA 2261/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2261 & 5122/Mum/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14) Ubs Ag Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Level 3, 2 North Avenue Income Tax (It)-4(3)(1) Maker Maxity, Bandra Air India Building, Kurla Complex, Bandra Nariman Point East, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu5003G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Manoj Kumar
Section 234BSection 37(1)

During the previous year relevant to assessment year 2012-13, the assesse has a bank branch in India (Mumbai Branch) which has been a permanent establishment (PE) of the assessee. Further facts of the case are discussed while adjudicating the ground of appeal filed by the assessee. Ground ... International Transaction fees received for marketing of FIP) 3. During the year under consideration the Mumbai branch constitutes a Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee. The Mumbai branch operates in line with UBS group principles and policies of risk management which were aligned to local regulations wherever required

Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Gurgaon vs. DDIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 7846/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Addl. Cit, Block Ep-15, Dr. Hose P. Rizal Range-2, Marg, Chanakya Puri, International Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Ddit, C/O- Deepak Chopra, 140, Circle 2(2), Aspen Greens, Nirvana International Taxation, Country, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-50, Gurgaon Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Ddit, C/O- Deepak Chopra, 324, Circle 2(2), E-Space, Nirvana Country, International Taxation, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-50, Gurgaon Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent)

years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Assessing Officer had held that such royalty income is effectively connected to the fixed place Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, hence, such income has to be taxed on net basis. Accordingly, following the decision taken in earlier assessment years, the Assessing

Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Gurgaon vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1133/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Addl. Cit, Block Ep-15, Dr. Hose P. Rizal Range-2, Marg, Chanakya Puri, International Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Ddit, C/O- Deepak Chopra, 140, Circle 2(2), Aspen Greens, Nirvana International Taxation, Country, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-50, Gurgaon Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Ddit, C/O- Deepak Chopra, 324, Circle 2(2), E-Space, Nirvana Country, International Taxation, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-50, Gurgaon Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent)

years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Assessing Officer had held that such royalty income is effectively connected to the fixed place Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, hence, such income has to be taxed on net basis. Accordingly, following the decision taken in earlier assessment years, the Assessing