Which cases are most cited on installation PE?

Galileo International Inc. v. DCIT (19 SOT 257) — 31 citing judgments; Western Union Financial Services Inc. v. ADIT (104 ITD 34) — 26 citing judgments; Dy. CIT v. Roxon OY (103 TTJ 891) — 22 citing judgments; Para 26 9. Bombardier Transportation Sweden AB v. DCIT (125 Taxmann.com 277) — 22 citing judgments; Reuters Transaction Services Pvt Ltd. v. DDIT (151 ITD 510) — 22 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss installation PE?

BharatTax indexes 71 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss installation PE (DTAA Article 5).

← All Phrases

“installation PE”

Q: What is the leading case on installation PE?

Galileo International Inc. v. DCIT (19 SOT 257) is the decision most relied on for installation PE, cited in 31 judgments on BharatTax. 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.

International TaxDTAA Article 5DTAA Article 571 judgments

The decision most relied on for installation PE is Galileo International Inc. v. DCIT (19 SOT 257), cited in 31 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on installation PE

Galileo International Inc. v. DCIT

19 SOT 257 · 2008 · ITAT

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.

Western Union Financial Services Inc. v. ADIT

104 ITD 34 · 2007 · ITAT

citing judgments

Software installed in India granting access to an assessee's mainframe located outside India does not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Agents are not considered to have an agency PE if they are not economically dependent on the assessee and lack the authority to conclude contracts.

Dy. CIT v. Roxon OY

103 TTJ 891 · 2006 · ITAT

citing judgments

The principles for computing profits of an installation permanent establishment do not apply to the computation of profits of a dependent agency permanent establishment.

Para 26 9. Bombardier Transportation Sweden AB v. DCIT

125 Taxmann.com 277 · 2021 · Reported

citing judgments

The case is authority for the proposition that the determination of whether a permanent establishment exists, particularly in relation to installation or service PE, must be based on the specific facts and the application of the relevant tax treaty provisions. It emphasizes the enduring benefit test in certain contexts.

Reuters Transaction Services Pvt Ltd. v. DDIT

151 ITD 510 · 2014 · ITAT

citing judgments

A case is distinguishable if the factual matrix differs. Where an Indian entity bears the cost of necessary equipment, the decision in Reuters Transaction Services Pvt Ltd. v. DDIT, which involved the assessee providing equipment, does not apply.

MS Srinivasa Naicker v. Income Tax Officer

292 ITR 482 · Reported

citing judgments

Profits from the offshore supply of equipment do not accrue in India. A permanent establishment (PE) for installation and commissioning arises only after the supply of equipment.

Kreuz Subsea Pte. Ltd. v. Deputy Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) 3 (1), Mumbai

58 Taxmann.com 371 · 2015 · Reported

citing judgments

When multiple provisions of Article 5 of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) might apply to determine a Permanent Establishment (PE), the specific provision concerning a 'Service PE' (Article 5(3)) related to construction, installation, or assembly projects exceeding 183 days takes precedence.

2009) 318 ITR 190 (AAR-New Delhi) Cal Drive Marine Construction (Mauritius) Ltd. v. DIT (International Taxation)

315 ITR 334 · 2009 · Reported

citing judgments

A non-resident company may not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India if its activities at the project site are limited and do not satisfy the 'business test' under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). This is especially true if the entire work is carried out by a subcontractor.

Judgments citing installation PE

Southern Enterprises, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Ward 22, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2941/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sanchitha for Mr. R. SivaramanFor Respondent: Mr. Praveen. S, JCIT

Section 10BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Alstom Transport Sa, Karnataka vs. DCIT, Int. Taxation Circle 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, impugned assessment order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1715/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.1711 To 1715/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2011-12, 2013-14 To 2015-16 और 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra & Ms. Priyan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT(DR)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “डी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अवधेश कुमार िम"ा, लेखाकार सद" के सम

Alstom Transport Sa, Karnataka vs. DCIT, Int. Taxation Circle 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, impugned assessment order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1714/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.1711 To 1715/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2011-12, 2013-14 To 2015-16 और 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra & Ms. Priyan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT(DR)

Alstom Transport Sa, Bangalore vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation Circle 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, impugned assessment order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1713/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.1711 To 1715/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2011-12, 2013-14 To 2015-16 और 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra & Ms. Priyan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT(DR)

Alstom Transport Sa, Bangalore vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation Circle 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, impugned assessment order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1712/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.1711 To 1715/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2011-12, 2013-14 To 2015-16 और 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra & Ms. Priyan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT(DR)

Alstom Transport Sa, Karnataka vs. DCIT International Taxation, Circle 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, impugned assessment order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1711/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.1711 To 1715/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2011-12, 2013-14 To 2015-16 और 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra & Ms. Priyan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT(DR)

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

ITA 2042/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

Elentee Co. Ltd., Korea vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Noida

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 972/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Eleentec Co. Ld. Vs. Deputy/Assistant 37 Samsung-Ro268 Beon-Gil Director Of Income Tax, Yeongtong-Gu, Gyeonggi Do International Taxation, Republic Of Korea Noida, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aafce6530P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Himanshu S. Sinha, Adv, Sh. Prashant Mehar Chandani, Adv& Sh. Jainender Singh Kataria, Adv Revenue By Sh. M.S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153(1)

1 Elentec Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI

Esm Group Inc, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(2)(2), International Taxation, Delhi

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

ITA 9365/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra[A.Y 2008-09] M/S Esm Group Inc. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T Suite 118 N, 300, Corporate Park Circle -1(2)(2) Way Amherst, New York International Taxation New Delhi Pan: Aacce 4072 H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Sudhir Kumar Dash, Ca Department By :Ms. C. Chandra Kanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Kumar Dash, CAFor Respondent: Ms. C. Chandra Kanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

consortium partner M/s Beekay Engineering Corporation has done its work by way of a separate contract and, therefore, the same cannot be held as installation PE of the assessee. There is no dispute that the assessee has supplied only engineering design, that too, from abroad and consideration in view thereof ... Article 12 of the USA-India DTAA. Since it has been decided that the assessee doesn’t have a DAPE in India nor an installation PE in India, the receipts on account of Drawing and Design can notbe taxed as Income in India nor the same be attributed

Lion Services Ltd., Delhi vs. Addl JCIT, Ludhiyana

In the result, impugned assessment order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1711/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.1711 To 1715/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2011-12, 2013-14 To 2015-16 और 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra & Ms. Priyan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT(DR)

M/S. Skaps Industries India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, (Inte. Taxn)-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for both the assessment years

ITA 681/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Shri ParinFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. D.R

Section 195Section 201

Accordingly, keeping in view the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal referred to above, which has clarified that for the purpose of determining an Installation PE under Article 5(2)(k), the stay of employees in India on a particular date has to be taken cumulatively and not independently, and also ... commencement and completion of the project. Accordingly, in light of the above facts, since we have held that TEC does not have an installation PE in India in terms of Article 5(2)(k) of the India-USA Tax Treaty, the assessee did not have an obligation to withhold taxes

M/S. Skaps Industries India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, (Innt. Taxn)-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for both the assessment years

ITA 680/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Shri ParinFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. D.R

Section 195Section 201

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

This decision, however, did not deal with the peculiarities of a dependent agent permanent establishment. This decision dealt with the taxability of the installation PE, and, the principles dealing with computation of profits of installation PE, in our considered view, do not have any bearing on the computation of profits

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)

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 or a business connection. 8. Further

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)

certain supplies are made by the Head Office outside India, then profits out of such supplies are not attributed to the construction, assembly or installation PE in India. Drawing our attention to clauses 1(a) and 1(b) of Article 7 of protocol forming part of the tax Treaty

Saab Technologies B.V.(Formerly Known S, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., International Taxation, Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, ITA No. 153/KOL/2022 is allowed

ITA 153/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Anikesh Banerjee & Sri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 144C

Installation Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) was constituted in appellant’s case for a previous assessment year in case of AAI (Delhi Phase-1) Project, an Installation PE would automatically be constituted for the current assessment year i.e. AY 2018-19 without any further examination of facts of the current assessment year ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in holding that the appellant has an Installation PE in respect of various projects namely (a) AAI (Delhi Phase -1) Project, (b) AA1- 5 Project and (c) GOK-AMC Project, undertaken by the appellant in India

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

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 of assessee in India. Consequently, why the Revenue received from ONGC from supply of equipment should not be treated as business income ... 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 but was only involved in supply of equipments from outside India

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

attributable to the PE in India. He further observed that in assessment year 2010-11, learned DRP has held that the assessee had a installation PE in India. Thus, relying upon past history of assessment and other departmental proceedings, the Assessing Officer brought to tax the receipt from off-shore ... facts are completely different in the impugned assessment year. He submitted, in earlier assessment years the DRP has held that the assessee had an installation PE in India. He submitted, only one of the contracts is continuing form earlier years, whereas, all others are fresh contracts. Thus, he submitted, without

Alstom Transport Sa, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation-1(1)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2378/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

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

Alstom Transport Sa, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation-1(1)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2377/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

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