← 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

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle International Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 885/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle International Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 884/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2240/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2239/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Ge Hydro France, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2086/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 44B

therefore, no income can be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 9.9. The ld. AO had further alleged that there is a Fixed Place PE of the assessee in India. The assessee had stated that it does not have PE in India apart from the project office which ... assessee in the return filed in India. We find that the ld. AO had concluded that there exists a Fixed Place PE of the assessee in India without bringing on record any evidence to demonstrate that the assessee has a fixed place available at its disposal in India which

Ge Hydro France, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2085/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 44B

therefore, no income can be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 9.9. The ld. AO had further alleged that there is a Fixed Place PE of the assessee in India. The assessee had stated that it does not have PE in India apart from the project office which ... assessee in the return filed in India. We find that the ld. AO had concluded that there exists a Fixed Place PE of the assessee in India without bringing on record any evidence to demonstrate that the assessee has a fixed place available at its disposal in India which

Baker Hughes Energy Technology Uk Limited, United Kingdom vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 3279/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediabaker Hughes Energy Vs. Acit Technology Uk Limited Circle – 1(1)(2), Stoneywood Park North, International Taxation, Dyce, Aberdeen-Ab21 7Ea, New Delhi United Kingdom – 1111 Pan No. Aahcg 6037 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sachit Jolly & Shri Rishabh Malhotra, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.03.2024

Section 133(6)Section 44B

therefore, issued a show-cause notice to the assessee stating that why the project office situated in India should not be treated as fixed place PE in terms of Article of DTAA. Further, why ONGC gas well located at Krishna Godavari Basin should not be treated as installation PE ... India hence, attributable to PE. 6. In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee furnished detailed reply stating that it has no fixed place PE by way of project office nor any installation PE at ONGC Gas well, as, it has not carried out any installation activity

Amadeus It Group Sa, Spain vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3175/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B.Vasanta, CIT-DR

Supreme Court for A.Y. 2020-21 in assessee’s own case vide order dated 20.07.2023 in CA No. 8057/2011, the assessee constitutes a fixed place PE under Article 5(1) of India-Spain Tax Treaty. 6 Amadeus IT Group SA 5. Attribution of Profits – Since, the assessee constituted PE

Automation Anywhere Inc., Usa vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 1(1)(1), New Delhi

ITA 3418/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaautomation Anywhere Inc., Vs. Dcit 633, River Oaks Parkway, Circle San Jose, Ca 95134, Usa Intl. Taxation 1(1)(1), Pan No.Aamca9481A Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(50)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156

case, we are of the view that the Revenue has failed to establish on record through credible evidence that the assessee has a fixed placed PE in India through which it has earned the income relating to sale of software licence. Therefore, in our Automation Anywhere Inc. USA 10 considered ... Further observation of the Hon’ble ITAT that Revenue has failed to establish on record through credible evidence that the assessee has a fixed placed PE in India is also Automation Anywhere Inc. USA 11 not acceptable on merits as assessee also failed to produce the cogent supporting documents

Ge Energy Parts Inc, Wildwood Parkway Atlanta Ga Us vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3199/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2021-22]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 44BSection 9(1)(i)Section 90

mind to the judicial precedents cited before us. The short issue arising for consideration is whether the assessee had a PE, either fixed place PE or dependent agent PE, in India during the year under consideration. No doubt, the past assessment history of the assessee reveals that existence of PE ... length. 11. However, as far as the facts relating to impugned assessment year are concerned, AIFACS building, which earlier constituted the fixed place PE of the assessee in India, was vacated on 01.05.2012. In fact, this was brought to the notice of both the Assessing Officer and learned

Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Dublin (Ireland) vs. ACIT Circle 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

Accordingly, the additions made by the Ld. AO in the impugned case deserve to be deleted on the merit for the year under consideration. Thus, the grounds raised are allowed and appeal of asseessee ...

ITA 3672/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmastay Application No.52/Del/2024 (Ita No.3672/Del/2023) Assessment Year: 2021-22 & Assessment Year: 2021-22 Adobe Systems Software Ireland Vs Acit, Limited, Circle-1(1)(1), Dublin (Ireland), International Taxation, 4-6, Riverwalk, Citywest Business New Delhi. Campus, Saggart, Dublin 24, Ireland. Pan: Aahca7203M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate & Ms Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: Heard & Perused The Records. 2. The Stay Application In Hand Has Been Filed For The Stay Of Demand In Regard To Ay 2021-22 And, During The Course Of Argument, It Was Submitted By Ita No.52/Del/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)

dependent agent PE in India in the form of Adobe India and that the premises of Adobe India also form a fixed place PE for the Appellant in India. In view of the above, the Ld. AO had attributed 35% of revenue earned by the Appellant from India

Sabre Glbl Inc., New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle- 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6040/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 216/Del/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 559/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4838/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 7724/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 6040/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Sabre Glbl Inc. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Tax, Adv. Circle-3(1)(2), C/O. Ms Associates, International Tax F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sabre Glbl Inc. Income Tax, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. International Taxation, C/O. Ms Associates, New Delhi F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

reliance by the DRP on the judgment of Galileo (Supra) was erroneous as in that case the Galileo had business connection and fixed places PE in India on the basis that the subscribers who were enrolled through the efforts of NMC to engage in the services of various participating airlines ... Galileo. The booking took place in India on the basis of presence of such seamless SRA system and therefore there was a fixed place PE. Ld. AR submitted that when the change in the business module has not been disputed then following the earlier years findings of the Tribunal about

Sabre Glbl Inc., New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle- 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7724/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 216/Del/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 559/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4838/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 7724/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 6040/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Sabre Glbl Inc. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Tax, Adv. Circle-3(1)(2), C/O. Ms Associates, International Tax F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sabre Glbl Inc. Income Tax, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. International Taxation, C/O. Ms Associates, New Delhi F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

reliance by the DRP on the judgment of Galileo (Supra) was erroneous as in that case the Galileo had business connection and fixed places PE in India on the basis that the subscribers who were enrolled through the efforts of NMC to engage in the services of various participating airlines ... Galileo. The booking took place in India on the basis of presence of such seamless SRA system and therefore there was a fixed place PE. Ld. AR submitted that when the change in the business module has not been disputed then following the earlier years findings of the Tribunal about

Sabre Glbl Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 559/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 216/Del/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 559/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4838/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 7724/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 6040/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Sabre Glbl Inc. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Tax, Adv. Circle-3(1)(2), C/O. Ms Associates, International Tax F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sabre Glbl Inc. Income Tax, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. International Taxation, C/O. Ms Associates, New Delhi F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

reliance by the DRP on the judgment of Galileo (Supra) was erroneous as in that case the Galileo had business connection and fixed places PE in India on the basis that the subscribers who were enrolled through the efforts of NMC to engage in the services of various participating airlines ... Galileo. The booking took place in India on the basis of presence of such seamless SRA system and therefore there was a fixed place PE. Ld. AR submitted that when the change in the business module has not been disputed then following the earlier years findings of the Tribunal about

Sabre Glbl Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Circle- 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4838/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 216/Del/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 559/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4838/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 7724/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 6040/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Sabre Glbl Inc. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Tax, Adv. Circle-3(1)(2), C/O. Ms Associates, International Tax F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sabre Glbl Inc. Income Tax, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. International Taxation, C/O. Ms Associates, New Delhi F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

reliance by the DRP on the judgment of Galileo (Supra) was erroneous as in that case the Galileo had business connection and fixed places PE in India on the basis that the subscribers who were enrolled through the efforts of NMC to engage in the services of various participating airlines ... Galileo. The booking took place in India on the basis of presence of such seamless SRA system and therefore there was a fixed place PE. Ld. AR submitted that when the change in the business module has not been disputed then following the earlier years findings of the Tribunal about

Sabre Inc, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 216/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 216/Del/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 559/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4838/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 7724/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 6040/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Sabre Glbl Inc. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Tax, Adv. Circle-3(1)(2), C/O. Ms Associates, International Tax F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sabre Glbl Inc. Income Tax, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. International Taxation, C/O. Ms Associates, New Delhi F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

reliance by the DRP on the judgment of Galileo (Supra) was erroneous as in that case the Galileo had business connection and fixed places PE in India on the basis that the subscribers who were enrolled through the efforts of NMC to engage in the services of various participating airlines ... Galileo. The booking took place in India on the basis of presence of such seamless SRA system and therefore there was a fixed place PE. Ld. AR submitted that when the change in the business module has not been disputed then following the earlier years findings of the Tribunal about

DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi vs. M/S. Sabre Glbl Inc., Gurgaon

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6731/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 216/Del/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 559/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4838/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 7724/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 6040/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Sabre Glbl Inc. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Tax, Adv. Circle-3(1)(2), C/O. Ms Associates, International Tax F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sabre Glbl Inc. Income Tax, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. International Taxation, C/O. Ms Associates, New Delhi F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

reliance by the DRP on the judgment of Galileo (Supra) was erroneous as in that case the Galileo had business connection and fixed places PE in India on the basis that the subscribers who were enrolled through the efforts of NMC to engage in the services of various participating airlines ... Galileo. The booking took place in India on the basis of presence of such seamless SRA system and therefore there was a fixed place PE. Ld. AR submitted that when the change in the business module has not been disputed then following the earlier years findings of the Tribunal about

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3254/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Us, It Has Been Stated That This Issue Stands Covered By The Decision Of The Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case For The A.Y.2018-19 & 2019-20 Which Has Followed Earlier Three Tribunal Orders.

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 9

respect to ground Nos. 9 - 14 wherein assessee has contended that its operation neither constitute business connection in India nor does it has fixed place PE in India nor does it have a dependent agent PE in India for total income of Rs.14,46,73,768/- cannot be taxed. Before ... refund 7. The ld. AO in the draft assessment order alleged that RGA International Reinsurance Company constitutes a fixed place PE in India dependent agent PE of RGA IRELAND in India. He has also alleged that unrelated three parties i.e. Indian Cedents constitutes DAPE of RGI IRELAND in India. Accordingly

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-Circle -4(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are allowed

ITA 1492/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270Section 9(1)(i)

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. 2.2 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 SRGBS constitute Fixed Place PE, Service PE and Agency PE of the Appellant in India. 2 3.2 The learned AO has failed to consider that the facts pertaining to the retrocession

Alstom Transport Sa, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 921/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Siddharth, CIT- DR
Section 234ASection 270A

assessment orders passed for assessment years 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2010- 11, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had a fixed place PE in India in terms with Article 5(1) of the Tax Treaty and 1% of the revenue earned by the assessee on account