“service PE”

SAIC MOTOR CORPORATION LTD,CHINA vs. DCIT,INTERNATIONAL TAX, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23] Saic Motor Corporation Assistant Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon, Room No.509, Building No.1, Vs Hsiidc Building, Vanijya Nikunj, Tower No.563, Songtao Road, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Pilot Free Trade Zone, Sanghai, Haryana-122001 China, Pan-Abfcs0870H Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Kunal Pandey, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rohit Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.01.2026 Order

employees performed supervisory activities in connection with manufacturing and assembling process of MG Cars by India AE, thereby holding that the assessee had a service PE as per India China DTAA. The Ld. DRP further noted that AO had also made reference to the findings of the Investigating Wing subsequent ... India- Image of the brands, China DTAA which deals with supervisory PE assessee has to control (erroneously concluded as Service PE) in the draft and supervise the order. quality of product. (ii) Assessee has not submitted any response stating that Therefore, since the assessee is engaged in supervisory activities

ORACLE SYSTEMS CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Fixed Place PE (under Article 5(1) of the DTAA) allegedly through which the business of the assessee is partly carried out. (b) Service PE (under Article 5(2)(ii) of the DTAA) for allegedly rendering supervisory services. (c) Agency PE (under Article 5(4) read with Article ... business of the subsidiary will be regarded as business of the principal. 14. The ld AR further submitted that there is no Service PE under Article 5(2)(l) as no Services has been furnished by the assessee in India. It is the say of the ld AR that

ORACLE SYSTEMS CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Fixed Place PE (under Article 5(1) of the DTAA) allegedly through which the business of the assessee is partly carried out. (b) Service PE (under Article 5(2)(ii) of the DTAA) for allegedly rendering supervisory services. (c) Agency PE (under Article 5(4) read with Article ... business of the subsidiary will be regarded as business of the principal. 14. The ld AR further submitted that there is no Service PE under Article 5(2)(l) as no Services has been furnished by the assessee in India. It is the say of the ld AR that

ORACLE SYSTEMS CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Fixed Place PE (under Article 5(1) of the DTAA) allegedly through which the business of the assessee is partly carried out. (b) Service PE (under Article 5(2)(ii) of the DTAA) for allegedly rendering supervisory services. (c) Agency PE (under Article 5(4) read with Article ... business of the subsidiary will be regarded as business of the principal. 14. The ld AR further submitted that there is no Service PE under Article 5(2)(l) as no Services has been furnished by the assessee in India. It is the say of the ld AR that

ORACLE SYSTEMS CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Fixed Place PE (under Article 5(1) of the DTAA) allegedly through which the business of the assessee is partly carried out. (b) Service PE (under Article 5(2)(ii) of the DTAA) for allegedly rendering supervisory services. (c) Agency PE (under Article 5(4) read with Article ... business of the subsidiary will be regarded as business of the principal. 14. The ld AR further submitted that there is no Service PE under Article 5(2)(l) as no Services has been furnished by the assessee in India. It is the say of the ld AR that

ORACLE SYSTEMS CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Fixed Place PE (under Article 5(1) of the DTAA) allegedly through which the business of the assessee is partly carried out. (b) Service PE (under Article 5(2)(ii) of the DTAA) for allegedly rendering supervisory services. (c) Agency PE (under Article 5(4) read with Article ... business of the subsidiary will be regarded as business of the principal. 14. The ld AR further submitted that there is no Service PE under Article 5(2)(l) as no Services has been furnished by the assessee in India. It is the say of the ld AR that

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.

existed in India. It has not been specified as to which form of PE existed in India – whether Fixed Place or Dependent Agent or Service PE? He submitted that be that as it may, that the findings of the assessing officer regarding existence of PE of the assessee in India ... India, merely observing certain clause of global agreement. There is no record brought on record with regard to fixed place of business or service PE or any employee of the assessee company had visited in India to execute any of the contracts or utilize the place of business in India

WTS ENERGY DMCC,DUBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, assessment order is quashed, and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH (Accountant Member)

contra, Shri M.S Nethrapal representing the department vehemently supporting the impugned assessment order submits that the assessee is having service PE in India. The assessee is not only supplying manpower but is also maintaining and supervising activities carried out by the manpower supplied by the assessee. The ld. DR referred

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

form of business presence in India which constitute a Permanent Establishment (in the form of Fixed place PE, Agency PE, Installation PE, Construction PE, Service PE) in India in accordance with Article 5 of the India- Ireland Tax Treaty or a business connection in terms of Section. Further, the assessee

JUNIPER NETWORKS SOLUTION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC ITD, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground no 3 raised by the assessee is allowed in its favour

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Juniper Networks Solution India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assessment Unit, Unit No.Iia, 06Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Nfac Itd, Parliament Street, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aaecj1345A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate Shri Sandeep Bhalla, Advocate Shri Anurag Singhal, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Order : 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.07.2024 Passed By The Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13)/144B 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.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI

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

decisions in the interest of SMC. 10.6 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in alleging that the assessee also had service PE in India alleging that the nominee directors were rendering managerial services on behalf of SMC to the appellant. 10.7 Without prejudice, the assessing officer ... erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that there is no concept of service PE under the Treaty 10.8 Without prejudice, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in computing the profits attributable to the alleged PE of SMC in India at Rs.238

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

decisions in the interest of SMC.\n10.6 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in alleging that the\nassessee also had service PE in India alleging that the nominee directors were\nrendering managerial services on behalf of SMC to the appellant.\n10.7 Without prejudice, the assessing officer ... erred on facts and in law in not\nappreciating that there is no concept of service PE under the Treaty\n10.8 Without prejudice, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in\ncomputing the profits attributable to the alleged PE of SMC in India at\nRs.238

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

decisions in the interest of SMC.\n10.6 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in alleging that the\nassessee also had service PE in India alleging that the nominee directors were\nrendering managerial services on behalf of SMC to the appellant.\n10.7 Without prejudice, the assessing officer ... erred on facts and in law in not\nappreciating that there is no concept of service PE under the Treaty\n10.8 Without prejudice, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in\ncomputing the profits attributable to the alleged PE of SMC in India at\nRs.238

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

decisions in the interest of SMC. 10.6 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in alleging that the assessee also had service PE in India alleging that the nominee directors were rendering managerial services on behalf of SMC to the appellant. 10.7 Without prejudice, the assessing officer ... erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that there is no concept of service PE under the Treaty 10.8 Without prejudice, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in computing the profits attributable to the alleged PE of SMC in India at Rs.238

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

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)

234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) v. Penalty under section 270A of the Act 8. 130/Del./2018 i. Dependent Agent PE ii. Service PE ITA No.7727/Del/2027 and Ors. Concentrix CVG … iii. Attribution of Profits iv. IPLC/ Link Charges 9. 1281/Del./2022 i. Dependent Agent PE ii. Service PE ... Attribution of Profits iv. IPLC/ Link Charges 10. 723/Del./2023 i. Dependent Agent PE ii. Service PE iii. Attribution of Profits iv. IPLC/ Link Charges 11. 724/Del./2023 i. Dependent Agent PE ii. Service PE iii. Attribution of Profits iv. IPLC/ Link Charges 3. The ITA No. 7727/Del/2017