← 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

Standard Chartered Global Business Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 2092/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadhri (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheila Parthasarathy (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9

under section 195 of the Act. 2.3 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the non-resident SCB, Singapore does not have any Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and as such the income earned by the non-resident would not be taxable in India. 2.4 The CIT(A) ought ... therein which was not the case here. Further, Article-7 provides that business income would be taxable in India only if the payee has permanent establishment (PE) in India. Since the payee does not have any PE in India, there was no obligation of TDS as mandated

United Arab Shipping Company Ltd.(Formerly Known As United Arab Shipping Company (S.A.G)), Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)- 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2254/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234DSection 270ASection 90(2)

Income-tax Department and therefore, erred in appreciating that the matter has reached finality. United Arab Shipping Agency Company ('UASAC') held to be agency permanent establishment ("PE") of the Appellant in India 3 M/s. United Arab Shipping Co. Ltd 5. erred in holding that the UASAC is dependent agent

Draegerwerk Ag & Co.Kgaa, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 547/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270ASection 274Section 92C

property, if the 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 ... which the income is paid is effectively connected with such permanent establishment or fixed base. In such case the provisions of Article 7 or Article 14, as the case may be, shall apply: 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1, if a resident of a Contracting State derives income from

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

ITA 2229/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

follows: 4. The assessee before us is a banking company incorporated in, and fiscally domiciled in, Korea. It is carrying on business, through its permanent establishment, in India as well. In the income tax return filed by the assessee, it was pointed out that in view of Article ... also pointed out that in terms of the provisions of Article 25(2) of the then India Korea tax treaty, “the taxation on a permanent establishment which an enterprise of a contracting state has in the other contracting state, shall not be less favourably levied in that other contracting state

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

ITA 2227/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)

follows: 4. The assessee before us is a banking company incorporated in, and fiscally domiciled in, Korea. It is carrying on business, through its permanent establishment, in India as well. In the income tax return filed by the assessee, it was pointed out that in view of Article ... also pointed out that in terms of the provisions of Article 25(2) of the then India Korea tax treaty, “the taxation on a permanent establishment which an enterprise of a contracting state has in the other contracting state, shall not be less favourably levied in that other contracting state

Aker Solutions India Sdn Bhd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)- Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1004/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1004/मुं/2022("न.व .2016-17) Aker Solutions India Sdn Bhd Level 16 Integra Towers The Landmark 348, Jalan Tun Razak, Kaula Lumpur, Malaysia - 50400 Pan: Aaica-1114-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax( International Taxation), Circle 1(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Hemen Chandariya & Anish Thacker ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 16/03/2022 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) In Upholding The Assessment Order Taxing The Interest On Income Tax Refund As Business Income Under 2 Article-7 Of The India- Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (Dtaa) @40% + Surcharge @ 5% + Cess @ 3%.

For Appellant: S/Shri Hemen Chandariya and Anish ThackerFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar
Section 244A

Tribunal on examination of the DTAA in the above case concluded that interest on income tax refund is not effectively connected with the PE (Permanent Establishment) either on asset test or activity test. Therefore, taxable under the Article 11(2) of Indo-Netherlands tax treaty. The Revenue carried the aforesaid

Cma Cgm Sa, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT (International Taxationa)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1013/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270ASection 44B

Article 9 of Indi France DTAA; CMA CGM SA ITA No.1013/Mum./2021 CMA CGM Agencies (India) Private Limited ('CCAI") held to be agency permanent establishment ("PE") of the Appellant in India 11. erred in holding that the CCAI is dependent agent of the Appellant in India and, such dependent agent ... issue arising in grounds No. 11 – 13, raised in assessee‟s appeal, is pertaining to treating the agent of assessee in India as permanent establishment of the assessee. 19. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The AO vide draft assessment

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) - RG. 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 6935/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Us Are As Follows:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 9(1)(i)

case in law, and based on the directions of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in concluding that the Appellant has a fixed place permanent establishment (PE) in India as per Article 5(1) of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India-Ireland tax treaty). While concluding a fixed place ... India. Assessment year: 2015-16 Page 5 of 17 5. The short case of the assessee is that since it does not have any permanent establishment in India, and, therefore, in terms of the provisions of Indo-Irish tax treaty, its business profits, embedded in the reinsurance premium received from

M/S. Biesse Manufacturing Company Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 338/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri, Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar K. Ganeshan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 92C

held that payment made by the petitioner to the overseas entity was in the nature of income in view of the existence of Service Permanent establishment (PE) in India and hence liable for tax withholding. Overturning the view of the AAR that Service PE was constituted, the Hon'ble High

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2891/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Jr. Standing Counsel for Dept. (DR)
Section 192Section 195Section 40Section 80JSection 9(1)(vii)

assessee also contended the income has not accrued in India in the hands of these recipients. Further, these non-resident concerns do not have permanent establishment (PE) in India as such provisions of Section 9 of the Act were not attracted. However, the Ld CIT(A) held that the fees

Integra Software Services P. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Pondicherry

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 736/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj (CA) for Shri. S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (JCIT) / Shri. Kumar Ajeet Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 43(5)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

required in terms of Sec.195 since the vendors were foreign nationals and the services were rendered outside India. These vendors do not have permanent establishment in India and therefore, the income would not arise in India. However, the assessee could not produce any agreement to demonstrate the nature of services

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2508/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

purpose of making or earning income from a source outside India. It was further submitted that the payee did not have any permanent establishment or presence in India. However, invoking explanation to Sec.9(1)(vii), Ld. AO held that the payment would constitute fees for technical services and taxable ... resident for services rendered outside India cannot be brought to tax in India as fees for technical services in absence of place of business / permanent establishment in India. Since, there was clear law by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the assessee has made payment without deducting

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2507/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

purpose of making or earning income from a source outside India. It was further submitted that the payee did not have any permanent establishment or presence in India. However, invoking explanation to Sec.9(1)(vii), Ld. AO held that the payment would constitute fees for technical services and taxable ... resident for services rendered outside India cannot be brought to tax in India as fees for technical services in absence of place of business / permanent establishment in India. Since, there was clear law by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the assessee has made payment without deducting

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2506/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

purpose of making or earning income from a source outside India. It was further submitted that the payee did not have any permanent establishment or presence in India. However, invoking explanation to Sec.9(1)(vii), Ld. AO held that the payment would constitute fees for technical services and taxable ... resident for services rendered outside India cannot be brought to tax in India as fees for technical services in absence of place of business / permanent establishment in India. Since, there was clear law by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the assessee has made payment without deducting

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2505/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

purpose of making or earning income from a source outside India. It was further submitted that the payee did not have any permanent establishment or presence in India. However, invoking explanation to Sec.9(1)(vii), Ld. AO held that the payment would constitute fees for technical services and taxable ... resident for services rendered outside India cannot be brought to tax in India as fees for technical services in absence of place of business / permanent establishment in India. Since, there was clear law by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the assessee has made payment without deducting

Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2091/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

want of satisfactory documentary evidences. It is true that if the services were rendered outside India by service providers who do not have any permanent establishment (PE) in India then this income would not accrue or arise in India in terms of CBDT Circular No. 786 dated 07.02.2000 and therefore

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1516/BANG/2013[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

chargeable to tax in Ireland and not in India. Further, since the Department in these proceedings has never alleged that GIL had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article 5 and accordingly by virtue of Article 7(1) of the India-Ireland DTAA, the right

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1515/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

chargeable to tax in Ireland and not in India. Further, since the Department in these proceedings has never alleged that GIL had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article 5 and accordingly by virtue of Article 7(1) of the India-Ireland DTAA, the right

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1514/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

chargeable to tax in Ireland and not in India. Further, since the Department in these proceedings has never alleged that GIL had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article 5 and accordingly by virtue of Article 7(1) of the India-Ireland DTAA, the right

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1513/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

chargeable to tax in Ireland and not in India. Further, since the Department in these proceedings has never alleged that GIL had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article 5 and accordingly by virtue of Article 7(1) of the India-Ireland DTAA, the right