“dependent agent PE”

BOOKING.COM B.V.,THE NETHERLANDS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarbooking.Com B.V. Vs. Acit, Circle -1(1)(2) Oosterdokskade 163, International Taxation, 1011 Dl, Amsterdam, The Civic Centre, Minto Road, Netherlands, New Delhi – 110002 Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagcb2395A Appellant .. Respondent

That the Ld. AO and the Ld. DRP have erred in holding that the Appellant constitutes a PE - Fixed Place PE and Dependent Agent PE, without any basis, material and on frivolous grounds and irrelevant considerations. 3.1 That the Ld. AO and the Ld. DRP have erred in holding that ... chargeable to tax in India. Ld. AO and DRP erred in holding that the assessee constitutes a PE fixed place PE and dependant agent PE without any basis. 8. The Appellant, a Netherlands-based company eligible for benefits under the India-Netherlands DTAA (*the DTAA'), operates a Digital Platform

KYOCERA DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS ASIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KYOCERA MITA ASIA LIMITED),HONGKONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTT TAX 2(1)(2), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

assessment order as well as the Remand report of the AO, treated the Indian subsidiary M/s Kyocera Documents Solution India Pvt. Ltd. as Dependent Agent PE of the assessee in India, applying the provisions contained under article 5(5) of India Hongkong tax treaty. The AO thereafter attributed ... sale agreement are similar to that of any standard distributor contract with third party agents and alleged that KDID is a dependent agent PE of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer has held that the assessee has a project office in India. The Assessing Officer relied on the judgment

KYOCERA DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS ASIA LIMITED,HONG KONG vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

assessment order as well as the Remand report of the AO, treated the Indian subsidiary M/s Kyocera Documents Solution India Pvt. Ltd. as Dependent Agent PE of the assessee in India, applying the provisions contained under article 5(5) of India Hongkong tax treaty. The AO thereafter attributed ... sale agreement are similar to that of any standard distributor contract with third party agents and alleged that KDID is a dependent agent PE of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer has held that the assessee has a project office in India. The Assessing Officer relied on the judgment

KYOCERA DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS ASIA LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS KYOCERA MITA ASIA LIMITED),HONG KONG vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(1)(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

assessment order as well as the Remand report of the AO, treated the Indian subsidiary M/s Kyocera Documents Solution India Pvt. Ltd. as Dependent Agent PE of the assessee in India, applying the provisions contained under article 5(5) of India Hongkong tax treaty. The AO thereafter attributed ... sale agreement are similar to that of any standard distributor contract with third party agents and alleged that KDID is a dependent agent PE of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer has held that the assessee has a project office in India. The Assessing Officer relied on the judgment

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

accepted that employees of the Assessee concluded contracts on behalf of LM India, the same would imply that the Assessee constitutes Dependent Agent PE of LM India in Denmark and not vice versa. 4. Name of Mr. Arun Sasidharan, on Purchase Order issued by Siemens Gamesa Renewables Power Private Limited

UK GRID SOLUTIONS LIMITED,STAFFORD, UNITED KINGDOM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(1)DEL, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23] Uk Grid Solutions Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income St Leonards Building, Harry Tax, Circle International Taxation Kerr Dive, Stafford St16 1Wt, Vs -3(1)(1), Civic Centre, Minto Road United Kingdom-99999 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaica6271A Assessee/Appellant Revenue/Respondent

India 5. Single composite contract was artificially split into three separate contracts 6. There exists fixed place PE in India 7. There exists dependent agent PE in India 7. There exists Construction PE in India 8. No evidence brought on record by AO for existence of PE 9. Attribution ... Onshore project activities. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee has installation Permanent Establishment (in short ‘PE’), fixed place PE and a dependent agent PE in India. Thus, the Assessing Officer attributed business profits to PE under India-UK DTAA. Further, the Assessing Officer held that Offshore receipts of Rs.23

NCR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

view that CIPL, since, works mainly or wholly on behalf of the assessee, it has to be treated as dependent agent PE of the assessee in India. Having held so, he proceeded to attribute profits to the said PE and accordingly, brought assessee's receipts to tax in India. Contesting ... case in assessment year 2021-22, under identical facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has held that CIPL cannot be treated as the dependent agent PE of the assessee. In this context, he drew our attention to the observations made by the Coordinate Bench in the said order. 7 Learned

GE GLOBAL PARTS & PRODUCTS GMBH,SWITZERLAND vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(3)(1), DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ge Global Parts & Products Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Gmbh, Brown Boverit Strasse Income Tax, Circle 8, Baden, Switzerland International Taxation 1(3)(1) Pan: Aagcg3668K Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi

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 in India ... impugned assessment year, it has to be concluded that the assessee did not have any PE, either fixed place PE or dependent agent PE, in India in the year under consideration. We again reiterate, our aforesaid conclusion is purely based on the facts involved in the impugned assessment year

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 the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

business of SMC in India. 10.5 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in alleging that SMC also had dependent agent PE in India since the nominee directors were taking commercial decisions in the interest of SMC. 10.6 That the assessing officer erred on facts

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), NEW DELHI

business\nof SMC in India.\n10.5 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in alleging that\nSMC also had dependent agent PE in India since the nominee directors were\ntaking commercial decisions in the interest of SMC.\n10.6 That the assessing officer erred on facts