“supervisory 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

return of income filed in India. 2.2 The AO in the DAO held that the assessee did not conduct any offshore sales, had a Supervisory PE, DAPE and Fixed Place PE on supply of goods in ITA No.- 1191/Del/2025 SAIC Motor Corpora"on Ltd. India and proposed ... Appeal are against the action of the Assessing Officer in determining Permanent Establishment (PE) of the Assessee in India by way of supervisory PE and Fixed Place PE. All the above grounds are therefore, dealt together. These grounds are reproduced as under: “ Re: Constitution of Permanent Establishment ('PE

LAHMEYER INTERNATIONAL GMBH,GURGAON vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Naveen Chandra

regional existence of place of PE and the article 5(1) in the form of JKSPDC-BCS as well as there is existence of supervisory PE under article 5(2)(i) in the form of JKSPDC-BCS was not established by the Revenue from any documentary evidence on record. Similarly

M/S. LAHMEYER INTERNATIONAL GMBH,GERMANY vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Naveen Chandra

regional existence of place of PE and the article 5(1) in the form of JKSPDC-BCS as well as there is existence of supervisory PE under article 5(2)(i) in the form of JKSPDC-BCS was not established by the Revenue from any documentary evidence on record. Similarly

SMS CONCAST AG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE- 3(1)(2) , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanddit, Circle 2 (2), Vs. Sms Siemag Ag, New Delhi. C/O Mohinder Puri & Co., 1A-1D, Vandhna, 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – 110 01. (Aadcs1173J) Sms Siemag Ag, Vs. Ddit, Circle 2 (2), C/O Mohinder Puri & Co., New Delhi. 1A-1D, Vandhna, 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – 110 01. (Aadcs1173J)

work related to supervision of the installation and commission in India for which it was seen that the assessee had accepted a supervisory PE in India in respect of supervision carried out by it. The income for this receipt was computed in accordance with the provisions of section 44DA ... case. Therefore, the decision of Sumitomo Corporation (supra) and other similar decisions are applicable in this case. He observed that absence of a deemed supervisory PE is further reinforced by the fact that duration test during the current assessment year has not been fulfilled and the assessee has not been

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

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

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 and law.” 3. It is the case ... copy whereof has also been supplied to us, relevant observation whereof is reproduced herein below: “3. Proceeding further to deal with the argument of Supervisory PE, the Tribunal has ultimately found that although the employees of the foreign principal were visiting India, they were clearly not involved in supervising

ANDRITZ AG,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2014-15

received from such services in the return of income. Therefore, he concluded that the amount received towards onshore supervisory services, being attributable to the supervisory PE, has to be treated as FTS and taxed on gross basis by applying the rate of 10%. Though, the assessee contested the aforesaid decision ... unsuccessful. 16. At the very outset, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee did not dispute the fact that the assessee had supervisory PE in India in respect of onshore supervisory services provided to SAIL. However, he submitted, the assessee, being a tax resident of Austria, is entitled

ANDRITZ AG,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2014-15

received from such services in the return of income. Therefore, he concluded that the amount received towards onshore supervisory services, being attributable to the supervisory PE, has to be treated as FTS and taxed on gross basis by applying the rate of 10%. Though, the assessee contested the aforesaid decision ... unsuccessful. 16. At the very outset, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee did not dispute the fact that the assessee had supervisory PE in India in respect of onshore supervisory services provided to SAIL. However, he submitted, the assessee, being a tax resident of Austria, is entitled

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANDRITZ AG, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2014-15

received from such services in the return of income. Therefore, he concluded that the amount received towards onshore supervisory services, being attributable to the supervisory PE, has to be treated as FTS and taxed on gross basis by applying the rate of 10%. Though, the assessee contested the aforesaid decision ... unsuccessful. 16. At the very outset, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee did not dispute the fact that the assessee had supervisory PE in India in respect of onshore supervisory services provided to SAIL. However, he submitted, the assessee, being a tax resident of Austria, is entitled

ANDRITZ AG,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2014-15

received from such services in the return of income. Therefore, he concluded that the amount received towards onshore supervisory services, being attributable to the supervisory PE, has to be treated as FTS and taxed on gross basis by applying the rate of 10%. Though, the assessee contested the aforesaid decision ... unsuccessful. 16. At the very outset, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee did not dispute the fact that the assessee had supervisory PE in India in respect of onshore supervisory services provided to SAIL. However, he submitted, the assessee, being a tax resident of Austria, is entitled

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

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

erection, commissioning, test run of the entire plant and machinery, it cannot be denied 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

COPERION GMBH,FOREIGN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20

mandatory condition of Article 12(2) of the Act, learned first appellate authority has made an attempt to link royalty/FTS income to the Supervisory PE. However, in our view, neither it is the case of the assessee that such income is linked to the PE, nor the department has brought

DSD NOELL GMBH ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(2)(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

erred in confirming the attribution of the business profits from supply of the equipment to the extent of 20% to the supervisory PE of the Appellant Page 5 of 48 ITA No.3186/Del/2016 & Ors. DSD Noell GMBH vs. Dy./Asst. CIT in India and thus taxable @ 42.024% in India, not warranted ... erred in confirming the attribution of the business profits from supply of the equipment to the extent of 20% to the supervisory PE of the Appellant in India and thus taxable @ 42.024% in India, not warranted on the facts as well as in view of provisions of Article

DSD NOELL GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE -1(2)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

erred in confirming the attribution of the business profits from supply of the equipment to the extent of 20% to the supervisory PE of the Appellant Page 5 of 48 ITA No.3186/Del/2016 & Ors. DSD Noell GMBH vs. Dy./Asst. CIT in India and thus taxable @ 42.024% in India, not warranted ... erred in confirming the attribution of the business profits from supply of the equipment to the extent of 20% to the supervisory PE of the Appellant in India and thus taxable @ 42.024% in India, not warranted on the facts as well as in view of provisions of Article

DSD NOELL GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

erred in confirming the attribution of the business profits from supply of the equipment to the extent of 20% to the supervisory PE of the Appellant Page 5 of 48 ITA No.3186/Del/2016 & Ors. DSD Noell GMBH vs. Dy./Asst. CIT in India and thus taxable @ 42.024% in India, not warranted ... erred in confirming the attribution of the business profits from supply of the equipment to the extent of 20% to the supervisory PE of the Appellant in India and thus taxable @ 42.024% in India, not warranted on the facts as well as in view of provisions of Article

DSD NOELL GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

erred in confirming the attribution of the business profits from supply of the equipment to the extent of 20% to the supervisory PE of the Appellant Page 5 of 48 ITA No.3186/Del/2016 & Ors. DSD Noell GMBH vs. Dy./Asst. CIT in India and thus taxable @ 42.024% in India, not warranted ... erred in confirming the attribution of the business profits from supply of the equipment to the extent of 20% to the supervisory PE of the Appellant in India and thus taxable @ 42.024% in India, not warranted on the facts as well as in view of provisions of Article

DSD NOELL GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

erred in confirming the attribution of the business profits from supply of the equipment to the extent of 20% to the supervisory PE of the Appellant Page 5 of 48 ITA No.3186/Del/2016 & Ors. DSD Noell GMBH vs. Dy./Asst. CIT in India and thus taxable @ 42.024% in India, not warranted ... erred in confirming the attribution of the business profits from supply of the equipment to the extent of 20% to the supervisory PE of the Appellant in India and thus taxable @ 42.024% in India, not warranted on the facts as well as in view of provisions of Article

DSD NOELL GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

erred in confirming the attribution of the business profits from supply of the equipment to the extent of 20% to the supervisory PE of the Appellant Page 5 of 48 ITA No.3186/Del/2016 & Ors. DSD Noell GMBH vs. Dy./Asst. CIT in India and thus taxable @ 42.024% in India, not warranted ... erred in confirming the attribution of the business profits from supply of the equipment to the extent of 20% to the supervisory PE of the Appellant in India and thus taxable @ 42.024% in India, not warranted on the facts as well as in view of provisions of Article

DSD NOELL GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

erred in confirming the attribution of the business profits from supply of the equipment to the extent of 20% to the supervisory PE of the Appellant Page 5 of 48 ITA No.3186/Del/2016 & Ors. DSD Noell GMBH vs. Dy./Asst. CIT in India and thus taxable @ 42.024% in India, not warranted ... erred in confirming the attribution of the business profits from supply of the equipment to the extent of 20% to the supervisory PE of the Appellant in India and thus taxable @ 42.024% in India, not warranted on the facts as well as in view of provisions of Article

ALSTOM (THAILAND) LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BOMBARDIER TRANSPORTATION SIGNAL (THAILAND) LIMITED),THAILAND vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) INT. TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Alstom (Thailand) Ltd. (Formerly Versus Acit, Circle 1(1)(2), Known As Bombardier International Taxation, Transportation Signal (Thailand) Delhi. Limited Thailand. No. 724, Phase 3, Gidc, Vadodara, Gujrat. Pan: Aadcb5702A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 Order

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT AND DR. BRR

PLANETCAST INTERNATIONAL PTE.LTD,SINGAPURE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE1(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

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

treaty, has observed that all project sites in India have to be treated as one for determination of installation and supervisory PE. To buttress his conclusion, the Assessing Officer has referred to India-Italy, India-Australia and India- USA DTAAs, where, treaty provisions explicitly provide that for determination of existence ... India- Singapore DTAA, each project site has to be construed as a separate project for constituting an installation or supervisory PE in terms of Article 5(3) and 5(4) of the treaty. Viewed in the aforesaid perspective, undisputedly, each project site did not exceed threshold limit of 183 days