← 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

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and

ITA 6949/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

violation of principles of natural justice. 0.2. That the assessing officer/DRP erred on facts and in law in holding that SMC had a Permanent Establishment ["PE"] in India in terms of Article 5 of the India-Japan Tax Treaty ["Treaty"] and income arising to SMC from sale of goods

M/S Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and

ITA 287/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

violation of principles of natural justice. 0.2. That the assessing officer/DRP erred on facts and in law in holding that SMC had a Permanent Establishment ["PE"] in India in terms of Article 5 of the India-Japan Tax Treaty ["Treaty"] and income arising to SMC from sale of goods

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

violation of principles of natural justice. 10.2 That the assessing officer/DRP erred on facts and in law in holding that SMC had a Permanent Establishment ["PE"] in India in terms of Article 5 of the India-Japan Tax Treaty ["Treaty"] and income arising to SMC from sale of goods

M/S. Tbea Shenyang Trasformer Group Company Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Int. Tax., Vadodara

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 121/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-2014 M/S.Tbea Shenyang Transformer Dcit, International Group Company Limited Vs. Taxation Tbea Green Energy Park Vadodara. National Highway No.8 Village : Miyagam Karjan Vadodara Pan : Aadct 4557 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar : Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Arises From The Assessment Order Dated 07.11.2017 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2013-14 In Accordance With The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Drp”]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92E

suitably modified. 2. The Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing Officer) - 1, Ahmedabad ("the TPO") has erred in determining profits attributable to Permanent Establishment ("PE") of the Appellant while the TPO's authorization u/s 92CA is restricted to determination of arm's length price of the international transactions ... accrued or arisen in India or is not deemed to accrue or arise in India and it is also not attributable to Permanent Establishment of the Appellant in India and accordingly adjustment of Rs. 9,09,30,135 deserves to be deleted. It be so held now. 6. Without prejudice

Sky High II Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1550/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

lease payment to be taxable in India for the reason that the Aircraft leased by the assessee that is operated in India is a Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee. The DRP in this regard held that the lessors i.e. the assessee satisfied all the relevant tests such as ownership ... classifying the leases as finance leases and hence the lease income cannot be treated as interest income. On treating the Aircraft as the Permanent Establishment of the Assessee in India  The reliance is placed on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Sunflower Aircraft Leasing

Sky High Lxxx Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1549/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

lease payment to be taxable in India for the reason that the Aircraft leased by the assessee that is operated in India is a Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee. The DRP in this regard held that the lessors i.e. the assessee satisfied all the relevant tests such as ownership ... classifying the leases as finance leases and hence the lease income cannot be treated as interest income. On treating the Aircraft as the Permanent Establishment of the Assessee in India  The reliance is placed on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Sunflower Aircraft Leasing

Sky High Lxxviii Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1548/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

lease payment to be taxable in India for the reason that the Aircraft leased by the assessee that is operated in India is a Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee. The DRP in this regard held that the lessors i.e. the assessee satisfied all the relevant tests such as ownership ... classifying the leases as finance leases and hence the lease income cannot be treated as interest income. On treating the Aircraft as the Permanent Establishment of the Assessee in India  The reliance is placed on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Sunflower Aircraft Leasing

Sky High Xc Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1547/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)Section 234B

accordance with the object and purpose of treaty 3. Applicability of Article 8 of India- Ireland DTAA #9 #9 #9 #9 #9 4. No Permanent Establishment in India 5. Nature of lease rental and supplemental rent and its taxability ... lease payment to be taxable in India for the reason that the Aircraft leased by the assessee that is operated in India is a Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee. The DRP in this regard held that the lessors i.e. the assessee satisfied all the relevant tests such as ownership

Sky High Lxxix Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1546/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

lease payment to be taxable in India for the reason that the Aircraft leased by the assessee that is operated in India is a Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee. The DRP in this regard held that the lessors i.e. the assessee satisfied all the relevant tests such as ownership ... classifying the leases as finance leases and hence the lease income cannot be treated as interest income. On treating the Aircraft as the Permanent Establishment of the Assessee in India  The reliance is placed on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Sunflower Aircraft Leasing

Foods and Inns Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4511/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)

agents located in the UK, Australia, Netherlands, France, UAE, Hong Kong and Germany. These agents neither had any business operations in India nor any permanent establishment here. Their role was confined to canvassing orders and facilitating export transactions abroad, and payments were made in foreign currency outside India ... hands of the foreign agents is purely business income accruing outside India, taxable here only if they had a business connection or permanent establishment in India, which has not been demonstrated. He further argued that warehousing charges are simple commercial payments for storage abroad and cannot be regarded as fees

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation -4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4712/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrishell International Dy. Commissioner Of Petroleum Company Income –Tax (International Limited Taxation) 4(2)(1), Mumbai C/O B S R & Co. Llp, 2Nd 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Air Vs. Floor, Lodha Excelus, India Building, Nariman Point, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics0357B (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/ Ms. Reema Grewal /Revenue By: Shri Satya Pal Kumar Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dy. Cit (It), Mumbai Dated 27.09.2023 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 9(1)(vi)

that the payment received by SIPCL is chargeable to tax in India and the declaration provided by SIPCL that it does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article 5 of DTAA, we rule that the applicant is under obligation to withhold tax under section ... issue in hand. We, therefore, deem it fit to allow the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. As the issue relating to permanent establishment of the assessee is not specifically raised before us by both the sides in the grounds of appeal, except for the arguments enhanced

Ebay Singapore Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2378/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(2)Section 253

State may be taxed in that other State. 2. Gains from the alienation of movable property forming part of the business property of a permanent establishment which an enterprise of a Contracting State has in the other Contracting State or of movable property pertaining to a fixed base available ... Contracting State in the other Contracting State for the purpose of performing independent personal services, including such gains from the alienation of such a permanent establishment (alone or together with the whole enterprise) or of such fixed base, may be taxed in that other State. 3. Gains from the alienation

Concentrix Cvg Customer Management Group Inc., United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2)(1), International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 1892/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

these employees of the assessee have the premise of CIS at their disposal. Thus, the Ld. AO/TPO has held that the assessee has Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) having fixed place. Further, it has been held by the Ld. AO/TPO that the CIS has practically a projection of the assessee’s business ... qualify as equipment royalty and process royalty in terms of the Article 12 of the DTAA; hence, the same was not taxable in India. Permanent Establishment (PE): 9. At the outset, Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Counsel representing the assessee submitted that the issue of PE was squarely covered

Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Netherlands vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Intl. Tax. 2(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1729/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarinmarsat Solutions B. V., Vs. Acit, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, International Taxation, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Circle-2(1)(1), Delhi (West), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacci9974L Assessee By : Shri Hiten Thakkar, Adv Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)

obtained from Inmarsat Solutions B. V. Netherland tax authorities has been filed. Further, the assessee has submitted that it does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. During the year the assessee received a total consideration of Rs.66,78,65,262/- which, according to the assessee, is its business ... income. Assessee further stated that in absence of a Permanent Establishment in India, the income of Inmarsat is not chargeable to tax in India. The assessing Officer however did not agree with assesee's claim. The AO held that the receipts are in the nature of royalty

ACIT, Circle 1(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Concentrix Cvg Customer Management Group Inc., Usa

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 724/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

these employees of the assessee have the premise of CIS at their disposal. Thus, the Ld. AO/TPO has held that the assessee has Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) having fixed place. Further, it has been held by the Ld. AO/TPO that the CIS has practically a projection of the assessee’s business ... qualify as equipment royalty and process royalty in terms of the Article 12 of the DTAA; hence, the same was not taxable in India. Permanent Establishment (PE): 9. At the outset, Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Counsel representing the assessee submitted that the issue of PE was squarely covered

DCIT, Circle-1(2)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Concentrix Cvg Customer Management Group Inc., Usa

In the result, the assessee's both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 723/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 234ASection 270A

these employees of the assessee have the premise of CIS at their disposal. Thus, the Ld. AO/TPO has held that the assessee has Permanent Establishment (‘PE') having fixed place. Further, it has been held by the Ld. AO/TPO that the CIS has practically a projection of the assessee's business ... qualify as equipment royalty and process royalty in terms of the Article 12 of the DTAA; hence, the same was not taxable in India. Permanent Establishment (PE): 9. At the outset, Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Counsel representing the assessee submitted that the issue of PE was squarely covered

Concentrix Cvg Customer Management Group Inc., United States vs. ACIT, (Int.Taxation) 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 668/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

these employees of the assessee have the premise of CIS at their disposal. Thus, the Ld. AO/TPO has held that the assessee has Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) having fixed place. Further, it has been held by the Ld. AO/TPO that the CIS has practically a projection of the assessee’s business ... qualify as equipment royalty and process royalty in terms of the Article 12 of the DTAA; hence, the same was not taxable in India. Permanent Establishment (PE): 9. At the outset, Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Counsel representing the assessee submitted that the issue of PE was squarely covered

Concentrix Cvg Customer Management Group Inc., United States vs. ACIT, (Int.Taxation) 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 667/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

these employees of the assessee have the premise of CIS at their disposal. Thus, the Ld. AO/TPO has held that the assessee has Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) having fixed place. Further, it has been held by the Ld. AO/TPO that the CIS has practically a projection of the assessee’s business ... qualify as equipment royalty and process royalty in terms of the Article 12 of the DTAA; hence, the same was not taxable in India. Permanent Establishment (PE): 9. At the outset, Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Counsel representing the assessee submitted that the issue of PE was squarely covered

Concentrix Cvg Customer Management Group Inc., United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation)- 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 3512/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

these employees of the assessee have the premise of CIS at their disposal. Thus, the Ld. AO/TPO has held that the assessee has Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) having fixed place. Further, it has been held by the Ld. AO/TPO that the CIS has practically a projection of the assessee’s business ... qualify as equipment royalty and process royalty in terms of the Article 12 of the DTAA; hence, the same was not taxable in India. Permanent Establishment (PE): 9. At the outset, Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Counsel representing the assessee submitted that the issue of PE was squarely covered

ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2)(1), New Delhi vs. Concentrix Cvg Customer Management Group Inc., United State of America

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 1281/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

these employees of the assessee have the premise of CIS at their disposal. Thus, the Ld. AO/TPO has held that the assessee has Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) having fixed place. Further, it has been held by the Ld. AO/TPO that the CIS has practically a projection of the assessee’s business ... qualify as equipment royalty and process royalty in terms of the Article 12 of the DTAA; hence, the same was not taxable in India. Permanent Establishment (PE): 9. At the outset, Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Counsel representing the assessee submitted that the issue of PE was squarely covered