“fixed place PE”

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

consequently erred in holding that Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd, India Branch (SRIB) and Swiss Reinsurance Global Business Solutions India Private Limited (SRGBS) constitute Fixed Place PE, Service PE and Agency PE of the Appellant in India under the IS treaty. 3.2 The learned AO has erred in holding that ... made erroneous inferences in relation to the facts of the Appellant and consequently, erred in holding that SRIB and SRBS constitute Fixed Place PE, Service PE and Agency PE of the Appellant in India. 4.2 The learned AO has failed to consider that the facts pertaining to the retrocession premium

Factive Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation )-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal & Factive Limited Asst. Cit(It)-2(3)(1) C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Llp 609, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, 252, Veer Savarkar Marg, C-41, C-43, G Block, Vs. Shivaji Park, Dadar, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 028 Bandra (E), Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaccf 5745 J (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri Dhanesh Bafna A/W Appellant By Shri Yogesh Malpani & Ms. Kinjal Patel Respondent By : Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Appeals By The Assessee Are Against The Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Ld. Drp' For Short) & Pertains To The Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since The Substantive Issue On Merits, Arising In The Appeals Are More Or Less Common In Both The Appeals, We Propose To Take Up Ita No. 4706/Mum/2023, Pertaining To A.Y. 2021-22, As The Lead Appeal. (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) Factive Limited Vs. Asst. Cit(It) 3. Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 Are Basically On Legal Issues, Challenging The Validity Of The Final Assessment Order. At The Outset, Ld. Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Submitted That He Would Prefer To Address The Issues On Merits And, If Warranted, May Press The Legal Grounds.

only with reference to certain exceptions provided under Article 5(3) of the Tax Treaty, which in turn is with reference to fixed place PE under Article 5(1) of the Treaty. Thus, he submitted, there is no reason to deviate from the earlier decisions of the ITAT, consistently expressing ... only with reference to Article 5(3) which provides certain exceptions to Article 5(1), which refers to a fixed place PE. The conditions of DAPE under Article 5(4) are totally different. As we have held elsewhere in the order, the A.O. has failed to demonstrate that the conditions

Tfdac Ireland II Limited, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle 4(1)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

irrelevant; and • that the assessee retained “ultimate control” over the aircraft in India through rights of repossession and inspection, thereby constituting a fixed place PE in India. On the characterisation of the leases, the ld.DRP held that the arrangements bore the features of finance leases, considering the allocation of risks ... that the lease rentals constituted “royalty” under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; (ii) without prejudice, that the assessee had a fixed place PE in India; (iii) that Article 8 did not apply as IndiGo was a domestic airline and the leasing activity was not connected with international traffic

Dae(Sy22) Leasing (Ireland)41, Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

irrelevant; and  that the assessee retained “ultimate control” over the aircraft in India through rights of repossession and inspection, thereby constituting a fixed place PE in India. On the characterisation of the leases, the ld.DRP held that the arrangements bore the features of finance leases, considering the allocation of risks ... that the lease rentals constituted “royalty” under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; (ii) without prejudice, that the assessee had a fixed place PE in India; (iii) that Article 8 did not apply as IndiGo was a domestic airline and the leasing activity was not connected with international traffic

Dae (Sabs) Leasing Ireland 43 Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax.Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and

irrelevant; and • that the assessee retained “ultimate control” over the aircraft in India through rights of repossession and inspection, thereby constituting a fixed place PE in India. On the characterisation of the leases, the ld.DRP held that the arrangements bore the features of finance leases, considering the allocation of risks ... that the lease rentals constituted “royalty” under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; (ii) without prejudice, that the assessee had a fixed place PE in India; (iii) that Article 8 did not apply as IndiGo was a domestic airline and the leasing activity was not connected with international traffic

Dae (Sabs) 10296 Ireland Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation), Cirlce 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and

irrelevant; and • that the assessee retained “ultimate control” over the aircraft in India through rights of repossession and inspection, thereby constituting a fixed place PE in India. On the characterisation of the leases, the ld.DRP held that the arrangements bore the features of finance leases, considering the allocation of risks ... that the lease rentals constituted “royalty” under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; (ii) without prejudice, that the assessee had a fixed place PE in India; (iii) that Article 8 did not apply as IndiGo was a domestic airline and the leasing activity was not connected with international traffic

Sky High Xliii Leasing Company Limited, Ireland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 4 (2) (1) Mumbai, Mumbai

irrelevant; and • that the assessee retained “ultimate control” over the aircraft in India through rights of repossession and inspection, thereby constituting a fixed place PE in India. On the characterisation of the leases, the ld.DRP held that the arrangements bore the features of finance leases, considering the allocation of risks ... that the lease rentals constituted “royalty” under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; (ii) without prejudice, that the assessee had a fixed place PE in India; (iii) that Article 8 did not apply as IndiGo was a domestic airline and the leasing activity was not connected with international traffic

Ortus Aircraft Lease 5( Dublin) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(2) International Taxation, Mumbai

irrelevant; and • that the assessee retained “ultimate control” over the aircraft in India through rights of repossession and inspection, thereby constituting a fixed place PE in India. On the characterisation of the leases, the ld.DRP held that the arrangements bore the features of finance leases, considering the allocation of risks ... that the lease rentals constituted “royalty” under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; (ii) without prejudice, that the assessee had a fixed place PE in India; (iii) that Article 8 did not apply as IndiGo was a domestic airline and the leasing activity was not connected with international traffic

Sunflower Aircraft Leasing Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(2)(2) International Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Revenue authorities have sought to bring the same to tax in India on the twin premises that; (a) the aircraft themselves constituted a “fixed place” PE under Article 5(1) of the DTAA; and (b) the conditions of Article 8(1) were not met. 3. Brief background and facts ... during the lease period, it was submitted, did not meet the “disposal test" or any other threshold under Article 5(1) for a fixed place PE. (iii) Article 8(1)Rental in International Traffic: Without prejudice to the above, the assessee contended that the rental income from leasing aircraft fell

Ortus Aircraft Lease 6(Dublin) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(2) International Taxation, Mumbai

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

irrelevant; and  that the assessee retained “ultimate control” over the aircraft in India through rights of repossession and inspection, thereby constituting a fixed place PE in India. On the characterisation of the leases, the ld.DRP held that the arrangements bore the features of finance leases, considering the allocation of risks ... that the lease rentals constituted “royalty” under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act; (ii) without prejudice, that the assessee had a fixed place PE in India; (iii) that Article 8 did not apply as IndiGo was a domestic airline and the leasing activity was not connected with international traffic