← 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

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1065/MUM/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Milind Chavan
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)

royalties, being a resident of a Contracting State, carries on business in the other Contracting State in which the royalties arise through a permanent establishment situated therein, or performs in that other State independent personal services from a fixed base situated therein, and the right or property in respect ... effectively connected with such 9 6 Appeals A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2020-21 ACIT (IT) 4(3)(1) Vs. M/s Viacom 18 Media Pvt.Ltd. permanent establishment or fixed base. In such case, the provisions of Article 7 or Article 15, as the case may be, shall apply. 5. Royalties shall

DCIT (It)-4(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Taj Tv. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1718/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-58 erred in concluding that Appellant has a Permanent Establishment in India In respect of advertisement revenue. Your appellants crave to leave, add, amend, alter, change or cancel any of the above grounds of appeal ... Even the telecasting is being done from outside India. It is claimed by assessee Taj TV that it does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India as the transaction entered into by Taj TV are on a principle to principle basis and at arms length prices. Assessee also claimed

DCIT (It) -4(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1717/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-58 erred in concluding that Appellant has a Permanent Establishment in India In respect of advertisement revenue. Your appellants crave to leave, add, amend, alter, change or cancel any of the above grounds of appeal ... Even the telecasting is being done from outside India. It is claimed by assessee Taj TV that it does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India as the transaction entered into by Taj TV are on a principle to principle basis and at arms length prices. Assessee also claimed

Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation -4(1) (2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1462/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-58 erred in concluding that Appellant has a Permanent Establishment in India In respect of advertisement revenue. Your appellants crave to leave, add, amend, alter, change or cancel any of the above grounds of appeal ... Even the telecasting is being done from outside India. It is claimed by assessee Taj TV that it does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India as the transaction entered into by Taj TV are on a principle to principle basis and at arms length prices. Assessee also claimed

Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation) -4 (1) (2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1461/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-58 erred in concluding that Appellant has a Permanent Establishment in India In respect of advertisement revenue. Your appellants crave to leave, add, amend, alter, change or cancel any of the above grounds of appeal ... Even the telecasting is being done from outside India. It is claimed by assessee Taj TV that it does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India as the transaction entered into by Taj TV are on a principle to principle basis and at arms length prices. Assessee also claimed

Taj Tv Ltd, Mauritius vs. DCIT (International Taxation)- 4 (1) (2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1460/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-58 erred in concluding that Appellant has a Permanent Establishment in India In respect of advertisement revenue. Your appellants crave to leave, add, amend, alter, change or cancel any of the above grounds of appeal ... Even the telecasting is being done from outside India. It is claimed by assessee Taj TV that it does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India as the transaction entered into by Taj TV are on a principle to principle basis and at arms length prices. Assessee also claimed

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 369/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the other State, and (c ) the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment which the employer has in the other State. 3. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Article, remuneration derived in respect of an employment exercised aboard ... behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the other State; and, (c) if the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment or a fixed base which the employer has in the other State. The Second Condition –the remuneration is paid by, or on behalf

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 368/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the other State, and (c ) the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment which the employer has in the other State. 3. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Article, remuneration derived in respect of an employment exercised aboard ... behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the other State; and, (c) if the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment or a fixed base which the employer has in the other State. The Second Condition –the remuneration is paid by, or on behalf

M/S Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 367/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the other State, and (c ) the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment which the employer has in the other State. 3. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Article, remuneration derived in respect of an employment exercised aboard ... behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the other State; and, (c) if the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment or a fixed base which the employer has in the other State. The Second Condition –the remuneration is paid by, or on behalf

Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 366/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the other State, and (c ) the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment which the employer has in the other State. 3. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Article, remuneration derived in respect of an employment exercised aboard ... behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the other State; and, (c) if the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment or a fixed base which the employer has in the other State. The Second Condition –the remuneration is paid by, or on behalf

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 365/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the other State, and (c ) the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment which the employer has in the other State. 3. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Article, remuneration derived in respect of an employment exercised aboard ... behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the other State; and, (c) if the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment or a fixed base which the employer has in the other State. The Second Condition –the remuneration is paid by, or on behalf

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the other State, and (c ) the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment which the employer has in the other State. 3. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Article, remuneration derived in respect of an employment exercised aboard ... behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the other State; and, (c) if the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment or a fixed base which the employer has in the other State. The Second Condition –the remuneration is paid by, or on behalf

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 363/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the other State, and (c ) the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment which the employer has in the other State. 3. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Article, remuneration derived in respect of an employment exercised aboard ... behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the other State; and, (c) if the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment or a fixed base which the employer has in the other State. The Second Condition –the remuneration is paid by, or on behalf

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the other State, and (c ) the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment which the employer has in the other State. 3. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Article, remuneration derived in respect of an employment exercised aboard ... behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the other State; and, (c) if the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment or a fixed base which the employer has in the other State. The Second Condition –the remuneration is paid by, or on behalf

M/S. Dmg Mori India Private Limited (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines and Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 165/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 165/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Dmg Mori India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines & The Deputy Services Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 3/1, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Kiadb, Peenya, 1St Stage, Circle – 11(1), Ward No. 1, Hmt, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aabcd0003E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vikram, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Cit(Appeals) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act (Rs.2,76,24,000/-) 2.1. Disallowance U/S.40(A)(I) Unwarranted: The Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Payments Made To M/S R.S Mail Limited , United Kingdom

For Appellant: Shri Vikram, Advocate
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

liable for withholding of taxes. The contention of the appellant that the TDS was not made since the non-resident beneficiary had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India is not tenable. Explanation 2 to section 195 of the Income tax Act clearly says that the obligation to make ... that, services were rendered outside India and the service provider, being R.S Mail Ltd., which is a UK-based company, does not have a permanent establishment in India. It was submitted that, the assessee engaged R.S.Mail Ltd., to conduct all related activities of market survey of machine tools industries

Lemnisk Private Limited (Formerly Known As 'Vizury Interactive Solutions Private Limited'), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2129/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan

various judicial precedents which have held that payments made towards web hosting services cannot be considered as royalty. Payment considered as Service Permanent Establishment a. The learned CIT(A) further erred in concluding that non- resident service provider has a Service Permanent Establishment in India without any basis or bringing ... deducted, as no income accrued or arose in India. It was also submitted that, the recipient do not have a permanent establishment in India and therefore, the payment did not fall within the purview of, “fee for technical services”, as defined under Section 9 of the Act. Page

Lemnisk Private Limited (Formerly Known As 'Vizury Interactive Solutions Pvt Ltd'), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 1851/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan

various judicial precedents which have held that payments made towards web hosting services cannot be considered as royalty. Payment considered as Service Permanent Establishment a. The learned CIT(A) further erred in concluding that non- resident service provider has a Service Permanent Establishment in India without any basis or bringing ... deducted, as no income accrued or arose in India. It was also submitted that, the recipient do not have a permanent establishment in India and therefore, the payment did not fall within the purview of, “fee for technical services”, as defined under Section 9 of the Act. Page

M/S Belgacom International Carrier Services Sa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1) International Taxation, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2884/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

For Respondent: Shri V. Sridharan, Senior
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Contracting State, carries on business in the other Contracting State in which the royalties or fees for technical services arise, through a permanent establishment situated therein, or performs in that other State independent personal services from a fixed base situated therein, and the right or property in respect of which ... contract under which, the royalties or fees for technical services are paid is effectively connected with such permanent establishment or Page 26 IT(IT)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 fixed base. In such case, the provisions of Article 7 or Article 14, as the case may be, shall apply. 5. Royalties

Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 8(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1718/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
Section 101ASection 143(3)Section 2(9)Section 3Section 30Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

foreign reinsurer does not have any place of business or branch or any business connection 28 M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., or permanent establishment in India. Hence, the payments made by the assessee company to the said foreign insurer is not chargeable to tax in India ... preceding provisions of this Article, an insurance enterprise of Contracting State shall, except in regard to re-insurance, be deemed to have a permanent establishment in other Contracting State if it collects premiums in the territory of that other State or insures risks situated therein through a person other than

Dy CIT(International Taxation)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Marubeni Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1046/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

erred in not appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has rightly held that the entire trade finance interest is related to Permanent Establishment of the assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating ... taxed at 42.024% without specifying any reason. The Assessing Officer also concluded that interest relates to the project office in India which is a permanent establishment and the same is taxable under the head 'Income from Other Sources' at the rate applicable to Foreign Companies plus surcharge and Education cess