← All Phrases

“fixed place PE”

International TaxDTAA Article 5DTAA Article 5222 judgments

The decision most relied on for fixed place PE is DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co. (292 ITR 416), cited in 360 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on fixed place PE

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.

(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.

Nortel Networks India International Inc. v. DIT
386 ITR 353 · 2016 · High Court
61
citing judgments

The burden of proving the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) under a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) rests squarely on the Income Tax Department.

DIT v. E-Funds IT Solution
364 ITR 256 · 2014 · High Court
61
citing judgments

A subsidiary is an independent legal entity, and the mere relationship of holding-subsidiary or control by itself does not result in a Permanent Establishment (PE) for the foreign company in India, whether it be a fixed place PE or a dependent agent PE, even when the subsidiary provides outsourced services.

Adobe Systems Inc. v. ADIT
203 Taxmann 554 · 2011 · High Court
59
citing judgments

A fixed place of business constitutes a Permanent Establishment (PE) under Article 5(1) of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement only if the premises are actually at the disposal of the foreign enterprise, thereby satisfying the crucial 'disposal test', and it is through this fixed place that the foreign enterprise carries on its business, wholly or partly.

Trib.) 4) TVM Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax
237 ITR 230 · 1999 · Reported
47
citing judgments

A non-resident entity's activities in India are assessed for Permanent Establishment (PE) under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements, considering types like fixed place, construction, and agency PE, and the applicability of presumptive taxation under sections such as 44BBB.

DIT v. HCL Infosystems Ltd.
144 Taxmann 492 · 2005 · High Court
45
citing judgments

Reimbursement of salary costs of employees is not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the Act. Additionally, for a fixed place Permanent Establishment (PE) or place of management to exist, business premises must be made available or a right to use them must be established.

Galileo International Inc. v. DCIT
19 SOT 257 · 2008 · ITAT
31
citing judgments

A Computer Reservation System (CRS) installed at the premises of Indian subscribers can constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, and a portion of income from Indian operations may be taxable in India, potentially exhausted by commission paid to Indian distributors.

Judgments citing fixed place PE

F.C.C. Co. Ltd., Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax), Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, D Block, Civic Center, New Delhi

ITA 819/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrafcc Co. Ltd. Vs. Acit (It), Circle (1)(3)(1) Plot No. 5, Sector 3, D Block, Civic Centre, Imt Manesar, Gurgaon, New Delhi Haryana 122001 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcf5381M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Khimta, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Surbhi Sharma, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 153

case & in law, the Ld. AO/DRP has erred in alleging the existence of a Permanent Establishment ('PE') in the nature of a fixed place PE and supervisory PE under the Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') between India and Japan on incorrect appreciation of facts

Ge Hydro France, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle Int.Tax. 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1881/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2020-21] Ge Hydro France, Deputy Commissioner Of Income A-18, 1St Floor, Okhla Tax, Industrial, Phase-Ii, Vs Circle International Tax-1(3)(1), Tehkhand, South East Delhi, Civic Centre, Okhla Industrial Estate S.O. New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aafca1688N Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv. & Shri Arpit Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr & Ms.Sabiha Rizvi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.11.2024

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 44B

Appellant in India. 9. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in arbitrarily holding that there exists Fixed Place PE of the Appellant in India. 10. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in arbitrarily holding that the Appellant has Construction PE ... been observed between the businesses of the assessee from supply to successful supervision as per the PGCIL, contract. The assessee has an admitted Fixed place PE in Indie w.r.t. PGCIL contract. Consequently, a part of the profits arising from the PGCIL contract from the offshore supply of equipment's need

Gemological Research (Thailand) Co. Ltd., Thailand vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) Circle-2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 790/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrigemological Research V/S. Acit(International (Thailand) Co. Ltd. बनाम Taxation) 2(3)(2), Mumbai 933, Mitrotown Ofce 17Th Floor, Air India Tower, 19Th Floor, Unit Building, Nariman Point, 1903-1910, Rama Iv Road, Mumbai-400021 Wang Mai Pathum, Bangkok, Thailand-10330 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg7850L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistryFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai
Section 147Section 148

aspects contained in Article 5 of India-USA DTAA. 10. Firstly, we may examine whether GIA India Ltd. can be constituted as a fixed place PE of the assessee in terms of Article 5(1) of the India- USA DTAA. As per Article 5(1) of the Indo-USA DTAA ... fixed place PE arises when the foreign entity has a fixed place in India through which its business is wholly or partly carried on. In this context, the learned Counsel pointed out that a similar situation has been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case

Gemological Institute of America Inc., California vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) Circle-2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrigemological Institute Of V/S. Acit (International बनाम America Inc. Taxation)-2(3)(2), Mumbai 5345, The Robert Mouawad 17Th Floor, Air India Campus, Armada Drive, Building, Nariman Point, Carlsbad, California Mumbai-400021 Zip-092008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg7962K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistryFor Respondent: Smt. Shaileja Rai
Section 147Section 148

aspects contained in Article 5 of India-USA DTAA. 10. Firstly, we may examine whether GIA India Ltd. can be constituted as a fixed place PE of the assessee in terms of Article 5(1) of the India- USA DTAA. As per Article 5(1) of the Indo-USA DTAA ... fixed place PE arises when the foreign entity has a fixed place in India through which its business is wholly or partly carried on. In this context, the learned Counsel pointed out that a similar situation has been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case

Sky Gem, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 790/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrigemological Research V/S. Acit(International (Thailand) Co. Ltd. बनाम Taxation) 2(3)(2), Mumbai 933, Mitrotown Ofce 17Th Floor, Air India Tower, 19Th Floor, Unit Building, Nariman Point, 1903-1910, Rama Iv Road, Mumbai-400021 Wang Mai Pathum, Bangkok, Thailand-10330 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg7850L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistryFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai
Section 147Section 148

aspects contained in Article 5 of India-USA DTAA. 10. Firstly, we may examine whether GIA India Ltd. can be constituted as a fixed place PE of the assessee in terms of Article 5(1) of the India- USA DTAA. As per Article 5(1) of the Indo-USA DTAA ... fixed place PE arises when the foreign entity has a fixed place in India through which its business is wholly or partly carried on. In this context, the learned Counsel pointed out that a similar situation has been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case

Sky Gem, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrigemological Institute Of V/S. Acit (International बनाम America Inc. Taxation)-2(3)(2), Mumbai 5345, The Robert Mouawad 17Th Floor, Air India Campus, Armada Drive, Building, Nariman Point, Carlsbad, California Mumbai-400021 Zip-092008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg7962K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistryFor Respondent: Smt. Shaileja Rai
Section 147Section 148

aspects contained in Article 5 of India-USA DTAA. 10. Firstly, we may examine whether GIA India Ltd. can be constituted as a fixed place PE of the assessee in terms of Article 5(1) of the India- USA DTAA. As per Article 5(1) of the Indo-USA DTAA ... fixed place PE arises when the foreign entity has a fixed place in India through which its business is wholly or partly carried on. In this context, the learned Counsel pointed out that a similar situation has been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case

Micro Focus Software Inc., Usa vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4768/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrimicro Focus Software Inc. V/S. Dcit,(International Tax) बनाम (Formerly Known As Novell Circle 3(2)(2), Inc.) 16Th Floor, Air India Laurel, Block D, 65/2, Building, Nariman Point, Bagmane Tech Park, C. V. Mumbai-400021 Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore, Karnataka, India- 560093 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcn5034F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 270A

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Gemological Institute of America, Inc., United States of America vs. ACIT (Int Tax Circle) - 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4433/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrigemological Institute Of V/S. Acit (International बनाम America, Inc. Taxation) Circle 5345, The Rober Mouawad 2(3)(2)Mumbai Camplus, Armada Drive, 17Th Floor, Air India Carlsbad, California Zip – Building, Nariman Point, 092008 Mumbai-400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg7962K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Smt. Shaileja Rai
Section 143(3)

aspects contained in Article 5 of India-USA DTAA. 10. Firstly, we may examine whether GIA India Ltd. can be constituted as a fixed place PE of the assessee in terms of Article 5(1) of the India- USA DTAA. As per Article 5(1) of the Indo-USA DTAA ... fixed place PE arises when the foreign entity has a fixed place in India through which its business is wholly or partly carried on. In this context, the learned Counsel pointed out that a similar situation has been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 9482/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu S. Sinha & Bhuwan Dhoopar, AdvFor Respondent: S/Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT(DR) & Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

ITA No. 9482/Del/2019 Samsung India Electronics. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH: ‘I’ NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI G

Ncr Global Solutions Limited, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), International Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the grounds are sustained and the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3230/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2021-22 Ncr Global Solutions Limited, Vs Dcit, Lakeview Drive, Circle 2(2)(2), Airside Business Park, International Taxation, Swords, Co. Dublin, K67 N2N9, New Delhi. Ireland. Pan: Aadcn5762E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Ms Viyushti Rawat, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.08.2023 Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Drp’) In Objection No.220 Dated 20.01.2023 Arising Out Of The Objection Before It Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), By The Dcit, Circle International Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

construction or other business sites or any other form of business presence in India which constitute a Permanent Establishment in the form of Fixed place PE, Agency PE, Installation PE, Construction PE or Service PE in India in accordance with Article 5 of the India-lreland Tax Treaty ... without having any place of business in India, in view of the above detailed discussion, it is held that the assessee has a fixed place PE in India in terms of Article 5(1) of India Ireland treaty. 13. Further, the provisions of dependent Agent PE as provided in paragraph

Bticino S.P.A, Italy vs. ACIT Intl. Taxation-1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2294/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 270A

consequently erred in determining 10% of such gross receipts amounting to INR 9,26,64,547 as net profit attributable to alleged fixed place PE of the Appellant in India. 3.3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO/ DRP has erred ... sale is offered to tax for Novateur India as its business income. 5. The Assessing Officer has held that “Novateur India” as a fixed place PE of the Appellant in India based on the following contentions:  There is no contract / agreement between the Appellant and “Novateur India” for sale

DCIT, Circle 3(1) (1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Ricardo Uk Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1410/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

record shows that the Tribunal has returned a finding of fact that the respondent/assessee does not dispute that it had a fixed place PE in India in the form of Ricardo India. 14. Inter alia, what persuaded the Tribunal to rule in favour of the respondent/assessee is the other aspect

DCIT Circle-3(1)(1). Intl. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Ricardo Uk Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1409/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

record shows that the Tribunal has returned a finding of fact that the respondent/assessee does not dispute that it had a fixed place PE in India in the form of Ricardo India. 14. Inter alia, what persuaded the Tribunal to rule in favour of the respondent/assessee is the other aspect

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Ricardo Uk Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1408/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

record shows that the Tribunal has returned a finding of fact that the respondent/assessee does not dispute that it had a fixed place PE in India in the form of Ricardo India. 14. Inter alia, what persuaded the Tribunal to rule in favour of the respondent/assessee is the other aspect

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - 4(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4693/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2021-22
For Respondent: Date of Hearing

accordingly business income from India we held to be taxable in India. The assessee contended that it neither has a business connection nor fixed place PE nor a Dependant Agent PE (DAPE) nor PE under Article-5(7) of the DTAA between India and Ireland. The summary of submissions made ... cannot be pressed into service unless these provisions are more beneficial. 10. In so far as assessee RGA services does not constitute a fixed place PE in India as per Clause 5 of the treaty on account of the following reasons:- RGA Ireland does not conduct any insurance business

JCIT (It) (OSD)-4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Arun Rangachari, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and

ITA 2393/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2009-10
Section 132(4)Section 147Section 254(2)Section 9(1)(i)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that there was no fixed place PE of the assessee in India without taking into account that the assessee was present in India for 110 days

J.M. Voith Se & Co. Kg (Earlier Voith Paper Gmbh & Co. Kg), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4862/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2015-16 J.M. Voith Se & Co. Kg Versus Dcit, Circle 3(1)(1), (Earlier Voith Paper Gmbh & Co. International Taxation, Kg), C/O Mohinder Puri & Co., New Delhi. Cas, 1A-D, Vandhna, 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. Pan: Aadcv4876D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Rajan Bhatia, Adv. Sh. Ankit Nanda & Sh. Anuj Mathur, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr & Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.04.2024 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan Bhatia, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR and Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 9(1)(i)

that the assessee has a PE in the form of supervisory PE. He further observed that the project office can be considered as fixed placed PE of the assessee in India, as the assessee has carried out business of design, manufacture, supply, supervision of equipment from there. Thus, he ultimately ... under section 9(1)(i) of the Act. 8. Further, he submitted, the allegation of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has a fixed place PE in India is without any basis. He submitted, though, the Assessing Officer had alleged that the assessee admitted of having a project office

Ab Sciex Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle Int Taxation 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the second issue which was remanded by the

ITA 1969/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 514/Del/2021, (A.Y. 2017-18) Ab Sciex Pte Ltd. Vs. Acit Block 33, 46 Marsiling Circle International Taxation Industrial Estate, 1(1)(1) Singapore. 739256 New Delhi Pan: Aanca1192P Appellant Respondent

High Court, vide order dated 21/12/2023 noted that the Tribunal has dealt only with first issue and concluded that the assessee neither fixed place (PE) nor a dependent PE in India as the Tribunal reached the said conclusion, observed that the other issues was academic. Further observed that ... /Sciex Pte Ltd. Vs. ACIT 8. The Tribunal has dealt only with the first issue and concluded that the respondent/asseessee neither a fixed place PE nor a dependent agent PE in India. Because the Tribunal reached this conclusion, it observed that the other issue was academic. 9. The record discloses

Ab Sciex Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle Int Taxation 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the second issue which was remanded by the

ITA 1968/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 514/Del/2021, (A.Y. 2017-18) Ab Sciex Pte Ltd. Vs. Acit Block 33, 46 Marsiling Circle International Taxation Industrial Estate, 1(1)(1) Singapore. 739256 New Delhi Pan: Aanca1192P Appellant Respondent

High Court, vide order dated 21/12/2023 noted that the Tribunal has dealt only with first issue and concluded that the assessee neither fixed place (PE) nor a dependent PE in India as the Tribunal reached the said conclusion, observed that the other issues was academic. Further observed that ... /Sciex Pte Ltd. Vs. ACIT 8. The Tribunal has dealt only with the first issue and concluded that the respondent/asseessee neither a fixed place PE nor a dependent agent PE in India. Because the Tribunal reached this conclusion, it observed that the other issue was academic. 9. The record discloses

Ab Sciex Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the second issue which was remanded by the

ITA 514/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 514/Del/2021, (A.Y. 2017-18) Ab Sciex Pte Ltd. Vs. Acit Block 33, 46 Marsiling Circle International Taxation Industrial Estate, 1(1)(1) Singapore. 739256 New Delhi Pan: Aanca1192P Appellant Respondent

High Court, vide order dated 21/12/2023 noted that the Tribunal has dealt only with first issue and concluded that the assessee neither fixed place (PE) nor a dependent PE in India as the Tribunal reached the said conclusion, observed that the other issues was academic. Further observed that ... /Sciex Pte Ltd. Vs. ACIT 8. The Tribunal has dealt only with the first issue and concluded that the respondent/asseessee neither a fixed place PE nor a dependent agent PE in India. Because the Tribunal reached this conclusion, it observed that the other issue was academic. 9. The record discloses