“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

Dy CIT (Int.Tax)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 762/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.762 & 761/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Dy Cit(Int.Tax)-2(1)(1) M/S. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd, Room No. 1713, 17Th बिधम/ 1. Raffles Link, 03/04-01, Floor, Air India Building, Vs. South Lobby, Singapore, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Foreign, Singapore 400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccc7328N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Bharti Singh-Sr, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Paras Savla/Pratik Poddar/Harsh Shah, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 28.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 25.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C For Ay 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Singh-Sr, DRFor Respondent: Shri. Paras Savla/Pratik

Section 143(3)

assessee in India, such income would not be taxable in India under Article 7 of the DTAA in the absence of assessee‟s permanent establishment in India. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 16/02/2018 passed under section 144C(3) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act observed that assessee is carrying ... further held that offshore distribution income earned by the assessee is in the nature of business income and in the absence of permanent establishment is not taxable in accordance with Article 7 of DTAA. The learned CIT(A) by further referring to the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal

Dy CIT-(Int-Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 761/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Singh-Sr, DRFor Respondent: Shri. Paras Savla/Pratik

Section 143(3)

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The DIT (I.T), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3345/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. The Director Of Income-Tax (It) 3Rd Floor, Tax Department 1St Floor, Scindia House 23-25, M.G. Road, Fort N.M. Road Ballard Pier Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai - 400038 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Fenil Bhatt Department Represented By : Shri. Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

liable to tax in India on net basis 17 Standard Chartered Bank in India. MasterCard and VISA also accepted under MAP that they have permanent establishment(s) in India. In this regard, the Assessee draws our attention to Page No. 1 to 9 of the paper-book filed before

Ntt Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd.(Formerly Known As Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (It)2(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 325/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountnat Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sunil MotilalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 115A(1)(a)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 194LSection 234ASection 234B

nature of fees for technical services but business profits which could not be taxed in the absence of a permanent establishment. 2. Ground No.2 - Interest on loan is taxed at wrong rate On the facts and in the in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing

ITO (International Taxation) 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. Shri Rajeev Suresh Gehi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 792/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Is Delayed By 14 Days. In The Present Appeal, The Impugned Order Dated 11-02-2022 Was Received By The Revenue On The Same Date. Thus, As Per The Provisions Of Section 253(3) Of The Act, The Revenue Was Required The Filed The Appeal Within 60 Days From The Received The Order. However, The Revenue Filed Appeal, For The Year Under 2 Shri Rajeev Suresh Gehi

Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)

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

Technimont Spa India Project Office, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 691/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.691/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) M/S. Tecnimont Spa India बिधम/ Additional Director Of Office Income Tax-(It)-Range-2 Vs. Tecnimont Icb House, 1St Floor, R. No. 108, Chincholi Bunder, 504 Link Scindia House, Ballard Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- Estate, N. M. Road, 400064. Mumbai-400038. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact8224A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M. P. Lohia/ Shri Pranav Gandhi Revenue By: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter “Ao”) Dated 30.11.2012 Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Only Issue Is Regarding The Transfer Pricing Adjustment Made By The Ao Pursuant To The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Direction. According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Is A Foreign Company Incorporated At Milan, Italy & It Has A Project Office In India Which Is The Permanent Establishment (Pe). According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Has Been Awarded A Project By M/S. Indian Oil Corporation (Hereinafter “M/S. Iocl”) At Panipat Project. The Assessee In Turn Has Awarded The Same Project To Two (2) Of Its Associated Enterprises/Ae’S

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Lohia/ Shri PranavFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92B

assessee is a Foreign Company incorporated at Milan, Italy and it has a project office in India which is the Permanent Establishment (PE). According to the Ld. AR, the assessee has been awarded a project by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter “M/s. IOCL”) at Panipat Project. The assessee in turn

Swiber Offshore Construction Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (It) 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee‟s appeals [ITA No

ITA 1822/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Section 44B

Revenue for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The common issue involved in these appeals pertains to determination of the existence of Permanent Establishment of the Appellant in India in terms of Article 5(1), 5(2)(c) and/or 5(3) of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation ... Treaty‟] during the relevant previous year(s) and the attribution of income to ITA Nos. 1191 & 1348/Mum/2016, ITA Nos. 2233/Mum/2017, ITA Nos. 7321/Mum/2018 such Permanent Establishment in terms of Article 7 of the Tax Treaty read with Section 44BB of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

ACIT (It) 3(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J.P.Morgan Indian Investment Company Mauritius Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue becomes infructuous as dismissed

ITA 2382/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2382/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit-3(1)(1), M/S J. P. Morgan India R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air Investment Company India Building, Nariman Mauritius Limited, बनाम/ Point, Mumbai-400 021 C/O- Srb & Associates Llp, Vs. 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacf0626J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No. 41/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S J. P. Morgan India Acit-3(1)(1), Investment Company R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air India Mauritius Limited, Building, Nariman Point, बनाम/ C/O- Srb & Associates Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. Ar सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 18.05.2022 & 23.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. AR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144C

Business income in the 18 I.T.A. No. 2382/Mum/2021 CO No. 41/Mum/2022 M/s J. P. Morgan India Investment Company Mauritius Limited absence of the Permanent Establishment (PE) when a foreign enterprise does not have a PE in India, there is no computation done when the income is reported in India

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It)1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

Bank (v). Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. v/s ADIT, 49 taxmann.com 441.” 7. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, since the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, its accounts have to be maintained as per the provisions of the Act. In this context, he strongly relied upon ... 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

Barclays Capital Mauritius Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, It 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7209/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.7209/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2016-17) Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited. 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. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-1(2)(1) 4Th Floor, Room No.427, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate With Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala & Shri Harshit Sangoi. ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Milind S. Chavan & Nihar Samal सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate with Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala &For Respondent: S/Shri Milind S. Chavan & Nihar Samal

Section 143(3)

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

Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle-15 (3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7318/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Plot No.9, Midc, Digha, Room No. 451, Aayakar Thane- Belapur Road, Navi Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai-400 708 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack2238F Assessee By : Shri V. Shridharan & Ms. Manasi C, Ar Revenue By : Shri C T Mathew, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri V. Shridharan &For Respondent: Shri C T Mathew, DR

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

assessee should have deducted tax at source on payment of commission to its associated enterprises in Foreign Countries , that did not have any permanent establishment in India or were not carrying on any business in India but were rendering services outside India. Accordingly, ground number 1 of the appeal ... clients situated abroad, had hired services of the said M/s. Pacific Hub Corporation, Philippines. The said M/s. PHC, Philippines does not have a permanent establishment in India. It would render services for obtaining human resources and infrastructure services to the assessee for serving its foreign based clients. In this context

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Acropetal Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 8/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40

considered view the nature of income would take the character of Business Income which can be taxed only when there is a permanent establishment (PE) for the recipient of the payment. In this regard we place reliance on the decision of ITA Nos.7 & 8/Bang/2019 Page 22 of 26 Ahmedabad Bench ... some treaties for the reason because, under those treaties the related contracting states proceed on the basis that even in the absence of the permanent establishment or fixed base requirements, the receipts of this nature can be taxed, on gross basis, at the agreed tax rate, and, to that extent

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Acropetal Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40

DCIT-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Karvat Cover More Assist Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4288/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)Section 250Section 40

Pune Tribunal). Moreover the said services are also not liable to be taxed under Article 7 "business profits" read with Article 5 "Permanent establishment" of India Australia DTAA because Cover-More Insurance Services Pty Ltd (Cover more Australia) does not have any PE in India." 3.8 The International Taxation wing

ADIT (It)-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Nagase & Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2312/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharashi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

following grounds: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Appellant's Liaison office constitutes its Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Japan. 2.Without prejudice to ground I above, the learned CIT(A) erred ... issue arising in ground No. 1, raised in assessee‟s appeal, is pertaining to consideration of liaison office as Permanent Establishment („PE‟) of the assessee in India under Article 5 of India and Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement („DTAA‟). 5. The facts of the case pertaining to this issue

M/S. Nagase & Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (I.T) - RG.-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1805/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharashi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

M/S. Nagase & Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (I.T) - RG.-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1803/MUM/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharashi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

The ADIT(It)-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/.S Nagase & Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 343/MUM/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharashi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

M/S. Nagase & Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT(A) Xxxiii, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/MUM/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharashi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

Cma Cgm Sa, Mumbai vs. ACIT, (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5998/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: S/Shri M.P. Lohia and Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: S/Shri Miland Chavan and C.T. Mathews

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Taxability of Freight Charges for transportation of cargo through Feeder Vessels. Grounds No.11 to 13 – CMA CGA Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. – Whether Agency Permanent Establishment (PE)of the assessee in India. Ground No. 14 - Error in computing Fees for Technical Services under the head “Income from Other Sources”. Ground No.15 ... view. Following the order of Co-ordinate Bench on this issue, ground No. 6 to 10 of the appeal are allowed for similar reasons. Permanent Establishment of the assessee in India : 9. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer /DRP have erred in holding that