← 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

DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. General Electric Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

ITA 432/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M Balaganeshm/S. General Electric Company, C/O Kpmg, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 Pan Aaacg5399M …Appellant. Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-3(1), Room No.136, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N M Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ….Respondent. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3(1), Mumbai-400 038 ….Appellant. Vs. M/S. General Electric Company, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. ….Respondent. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Shri Abhishek Tilak & Shri Ameya Pany. Revenue By : Ms. Surabi Sharma, Cit D.R. Shri Sunil Umap, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabi Sharma, CIT
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 9

Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered into between India and USA (Tax Treat). It did not have any presence in India so as to constitute a Permanent Establishment within the meaning of Article 5 of the Tax Treat and consequently, was not liable to tax in India in respect of the offshore ... providing such services will certainly earn profits on the activities. The activities indicate that the GEIOC is carrying out business in India through a Permanent Establishment (PE) and the income attributable to such PE is taxable in India. The company has not filed return of income for any year

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the revenue’s corresponding grounds stand dismissed

ITA 1322/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143Section 160(1)Section 40Section 9Section 9(2)

Article 7 of applicable DTAA, tax would be required to be deducted as source only if the services are rendered from a permanent establishment (PE) in India which was not the case here. Accordingly, no TDS was required and impugned addition was deleted. Similar finding was rendered with respect ... Indian Tax laws. Insofar as, taxation of impugned payment under Article 7 as business profits, we find that since non-resident does not have permanent establishment in India, same cannot be taxed as business profits. 8. Be that as it may. The issue before us is not taxability of payment

M/S. Buro Happold Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT (Int Tax) -1(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 1690/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234B

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 ... Buro Happold Limited 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 Further, even where

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DDIT It-3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 1510/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2003-2004
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

benefit of DTAA on the ground that the revenues earned by GCC were in the nature of „Business Income‟ and in the absence of Permanent Establishment („PE‟) of the GCC in India, above revenues were not taxable in India as „Business Income‟. Further, the revenues were also not covered ... excludes the applicability of Article 12(1)/(2) of DTAA. Article 12(7) of DTAA deems the royalty to arise in the state of Permanent Establishment provided specified conditions are ITA. No. 3135 & 3130/Mum/2006 & CO No. 324/Mum/2006 ITA No. 1510 & 1444/Mum/2009 & CO No. 160/Mum/2009 Assessment Years

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (Int. Taxation) - 3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3135/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

benefit of DTAA on the ground that the revenues earned by GCC were in the nature of „Business Income‟ and in the absence of Permanent Establishment („PE‟) of the GCC in India, above revenues were not taxable in India as „Business Income‟. Further, the revenues were also not covered ... excludes the applicability of Article 12(1)/(2) of DTAA. Article 12(7) of DTAA deems the royalty to arise in the state of Permanent Establishment provided specified conditions are ITA. No. 3135 & 3130/Mum/2006 & CO No. 324/Mum/2006 ITA No. 1510 & 1444/Mum/2009 & CO No. 160/Mum/2009 Assessment Years

ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3130/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

benefit of DTAA on the ground that the revenues earned by GCC were in the nature of „Business Income‟ and in the absence of Permanent Establishment („PE‟) of the GCC in India, above revenues were not taxable in India as „Business Income‟. Further, the revenues were also not covered ... excludes the applicability of Article 12(1)/(2) of DTAA. Article 12(7) of DTAA deems the royalty to arise in the state of Permanent Establishment provided specified conditions are ITA. No. 3135 & 3130/Mum/2006 & CO No. 324/Mum/2006 ITA No. 1510 & 1444/Mum/2009 & CO No. 160/Mum/2009 Assessment Years

Oxford University Press Ai, Mumbai vs. DCIT International Taxation, Mumbai

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

ITA 2186/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 194H

declaring total income of Rs 23,69,96,370/-. We find that the assessee is a non-resident foreign company, also having a Branch Permanent Establishment in India and hence would be governed in that status as per the provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act and also India

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

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 842/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 92C

holding Tax Residency Certificate for the year under consideration. During the year under consideration, the assessee has a branch in India, which constitutes the Permanent Establishment of the assessee in India. The assessee filed its return of income, for the year under consideration, on 30/11/2011 declaring a total income ... treated as business income and held to be taxable in India as the same is attributable directly or indirectly to the assessee’s Permanent Establishment in India. The learned DRP vide its directions issued under section 144C(5) of the Act by following the decision of the coordinate bench

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

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1347/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 92C

holding Tax Residency Certificate for the year under consideration. During the year under consideration, the assessee has a branch in India, which constitutes the Permanent Establishment of the assessee in India. The assessee filed its return of income, for the year under consideration, on 30/11/2011 declaring a total income ... treated as business income and held to be taxable in India as the same is attributable directly or indirectly to the assessee’s Permanent Establishment in India. The learned DRP vide its directions issued under section 144C(5) of the Act by following the decision of the coordinate bench

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Allsec Technologies Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 421/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 195(1)Section 40

contract, the assessee paid commission of 5% for business obtained by these two entities outside India. Both the payees did not have any permanent establishment (PE) in India and therefore, the payments were not liable to TDS as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Toshuku ... liable for TDS. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of Faizan Shoes [2014] ITR 155 (Madras) held that foreign agents had no permanent establishments in India, no part of their services have been rendered in India, and in such a situation, there was no obligation on the assessee

DCIT, Ltu(Appeal)-1, Chennai vs. Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years ...

ITA 3044/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2901 & 2902/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Turbo Energy Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 67 Chamiers Road, V. Income Tax, Raja Annamalaipuram, Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai – 600 034 [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3043 & 3044/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Turbo Energy Private Limited, Income Tax, V. 67 Chamiers Road, Large Tax Payer Unit -2, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 2(29)(BA)Section 35Section 40Section 80I

under managerial or technical services within the meaning of IT Act and the services are rendered outside India and non-resident party has no permanent establishment or business connection in India. Accordingly, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in G.E. Technological Centre Pvt. Ltd., the Ld.CIT ... taxable, it is taxable as business profits in which case, only the profits required to be brought to tax if there is a permanent establishment or business connection in India. Since the assessee has no permanent establishment, the application of Sec.9(1)(vii) and Sec.195 has no application. The assessee

DCIT, Ltu(Appeal)-1, Chennai vs. Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years ...

ITA 3043/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2901 & 2902/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Turbo Energy Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 67 Chamiers Road, V. Income Tax, Raja Annamalaipuram, Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai – 600 034 [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3043 & 3044/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Turbo Energy Private Limited, Income Tax, V. 67 Chamiers Road, Large Tax Payer Unit -2, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 2(29)(BA)Section 35Section 40Section 80I

under managerial or technical services within the meaning of IT Act and the services are rendered outside India and non-resident party has no permanent establishment or business connection in India. Accordingly, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in G.E. Technological Centre Pvt. Ltd., the Ld.CIT ... taxable, it is taxable as business profits in which case, only the profits required to be brought to tax if there is a permanent establishment or business connection in India. Since the assessee has no permanent establishment, the application of Sec.9(1)(vii) and Sec.195 has no application. The assessee

Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu(Appeal)-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years ...

ITA 2902/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2901 & 2902/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Turbo Energy Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 67 Chamiers Road, V. Income Tax, Raja Annamalaipuram, Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai – 600 034 [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3043 & 3044/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Turbo Energy Private Limited, Income Tax, V. 67 Chamiers Road, Large Tax Payer Unit -2, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 2(29)(BA)Section 35Section 40Section 80I

under managerial or technical services within the meaning of IT Act and the services are rendered outside India and non-resident party has no permanent establishment or business connection in India. Accordingly, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in G.E. Technological Centre Pvt. Ltd., the Ld.CIT ... taxable, it is taxable as business profits in which case, only the profits required to be brought to tax if there is a permanent establishment or business connection in India. Since the assessee has no permanent establishment, the application of Sec.9(1)(vii) and Sec.195 has no application. The assessee

Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu(Appeal)-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years ...

ITA 2901/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2901 & 2902/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Turbo Energy Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 67 Chamiers Road, V. Income Tax, Raja Annamalaipuram, Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai – 600 034 [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3043 & 3044/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Turbo Energy Private Limited, Income Tax, V. 67 Chamiers Road, Large Tax Payer Unit -2, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 2(29)(BA)Section 35Section 40Section 80I

under managerial or technical services within the meaning of IT Act and the services are rendered outside India and non-resident party has no permanent establishment or business connection in India. Accordingly, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in G.E. Technological Centre Pvt. Ltd., the Ld.CIT ... taxable, it is taxable as business profits in which case, only the profits required to be brought to tax if there is a permanent establishment or business connection in India. Since the assessee has no permanent establishment, the application of Sec.9(1)(vii) and Sec.195 has no application. The assessee

Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited (in Liquidation), Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) (It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 509/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.509/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2015-16) Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited. (In Liquidation) C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028 Pan: Aaccb-4438-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-1(2)(1),Mumbai, 18Th Floor, Room No.1811, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31/01/2022 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2 2. Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That She Is Not Pressing Ground No.1 Of Appeal Challenging Reassessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Ms.Jasmin AmalsadvalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 147

India- while former is a company incorporated in, and fiscally domiciled in, the United Kingdom, the latter is an Indian branch office, and permanent establishment, of a company, incorporated or fiscally domiciled in India. None of these entities, i.e., the foreign company or the Indian depository, can thus be treated ... 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

M/S Owens Coming Inc, Mumbai vs. The DCIT(Intl Tax) Circle 3(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 459/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Owens-Corning Inc. C/O.Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd. 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan:Aaaco-3242-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle – 3(2)(2) Mumbai, Room No.X. 16Th Floor, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bhalla & Ms. Megha Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23/02/2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Solitary Issue By Way Of Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla & Ms. Megha ShahFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

exempt being covered under Article -7 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Further, the assessee has claimed that the assessee does not have Permanent Establishment (PE) in India as per Article -5 of India-US - DTAA. 6. A perusal of the DRP directions reveal that OCIPL and OCIIPL have

M/S. Warner Bros.Distributing Inc., Mumbai vs. ACIT (Intl Tax)-4(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed pro-tanto

ITA 1721/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalvkvkla- 1721@Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2019&20½ ..... Vihykfkhz/Applicant Warner Bros. Distributing Inc. C/Of The Act Warner Bros. Pictures India Pvt. Ltd. 407, 4Th Floor, Windfall, Sahar Plaza Complex, Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar Andheri East, Mumbai-400 059 Pan No. Aaacw6559R Cuke Vs. ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Room No.1611, 16Th Floor, Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash-Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 5(2)

learned AO as well as the Hon’ble DRP erred in holding that Warner Bros. Pictures (India) Pvt. Ltd. is a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment of the appellant, consciously ignoring Hon’ble DRP’s own directions for AY 2010- 11 to AY 2012-13, binding orders of this ... findings of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the Assessing Officer (AO) in holding Warner Bros. Pictures India Private Limited as Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) of the assessee/appellant. Therefore, income earned by the assessee as royalty from India is taxable in India. The learned AR submits that identical issue

ACIT, Chennai vs. Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 151/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.151/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Tractors & Farm Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Equipment Ltd., No. 33, Pottipatti New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Mahatma Plaza, N.H. Road, Chennai 600 034. Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaact2761Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Boopathi, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai, Dated 28.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The First Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Relating To Deletion Of Addition Made Towards Provision For Sales Incentive Expenses Included In The Project Promotion Expenses. In The Assessment Order, The Assessing Officer Has Noted That In The Product

For Appellant: Shri R. Boopathi, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

been provided by non- resident commission agents to the assessee only outside India and these agents neither have business connection in India nor any Permanent Establishment in India. Thus the Tribunal held that no income accrues or 6 I.T.A. No.151/Chny/18 arises or deemed to accrue or arise in India ... Supreme Court in the case of Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., 291 ITR 482 held that it is the act of setting out a permanent establishment which triggers the taxability of transaction in the source state, therefore, unless the permanent establishment is set up, the question of taxability does

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

held to be taxable in India. The Ld.AR submitted that the non resident BAP’s provided services outside India and did not have a permanent establishment in India is an admitted fact and therefore, the same is not taxable in India. He relied on following decisions in support: decision

Sr Technics Switzerland Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It)-4(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6616/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyals.R. Technics Switzerland Limited. C/O. B-206, Citipoint, A.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059. Pan: Aalcs3475M ...... Appellant Vs. Acit (International Taxation), Range- 4(2) (2), Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Dhanesh Bafna / Sh. Pratik Shah Respondent By : Ms. Surabhi Sharma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/11/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Acit(It-4(2)(2), Mumbai, [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Acit’] Dated 24.09.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144(C)(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Dhanesh Bafna / Sh. Pratik ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 245Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)

circumstances of the - case and in law, the Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP erred in concluding that the Appellant has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under Article 5 of the India - Switzerland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and thereby erred in charging to tax, the business profits ... 6616/Mum/2018-S.R. Technics Switzerland Limited. Tax Act, 1961 nor Article 12 the DTAA. It also claims that it does not have a Permanent Establishment in India. 5. However, AO was of the opinion that assessee has a Liaison Office (LO) as a Service PE or Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment (DAPE), there