“supervisory PE”

Fcc Co. Ltd, Japan vs. ACIT, Circle 1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above and stay

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21

have been called upon to decide whether the assessee had a Permanent Establishment (PE) either in the nature of a fixed place PE or Supervisory PE under Article 5 of Indian-Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 3. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, submitted that the issue ... preceding assessment years i.e. 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had a fixed place and supervisory PE in India in the form of Indian subsidiary and the raw-material and capital goods sold were effectively connected with the activities of the PE

Lahmeyer Holding Gmbh, Germany vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2008-09 Lahmeyer International Vs. Ddit, Gmbh, Circle-3(2), Friedberger Strasse 173, International Taxation, 61118 Bad Vilbel, New Delhi Deutschland (Germany) Pan :Aaacl6802E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Lahmeyer Holding Gmbh Vs. Ddit, (Formerly Lahmeyer Circle-3(2), International International Gmbh), Taxation, Friedberger Strasse 173, New Delhi 61118 Bad Vilbel, Deutschland (Germany) Pan :Aaacl6802E (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

Lahmeyer International Gmbh, Germany vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2008-09 Lahmeyer International Vs. Ddit, Gmbh, Circle-3(2), Friedberger Strasse 173, International Taxation, 61118 Bad Vilbel, New Delhi Deutschland (Germany) Pan :Aaacl6802E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Lahmeyer Holding Gmbh Vs. Ddit, (Formerly Lahmeyer Circle-3(2), International International Gmbh), Taxation, Friedberger Strasse 173, New Delhi 61118 Bad Vilbel, Deutschland (Germany) Pan :Aaacl6802E (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

income, the assessee offered Rs.23,71,30,394/- being supervisory fees which had not been earlier included on the ground that it has no supervisory PE in India and the PE received being integral part of supply is not taxable in India. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide ... fact supervision was done after the supply of equipments. The revenue could not establish that the assessee is having fixed place PE or supervisory PE. The ratio laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of M/s Ishikawaiima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. (supra) is applicable in the present case

DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi vs. M/S. Sms Co0Ncst Ag, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

addition of Rs. 1,06,87,179/- on account of business profit from supply of plant & machinery even when the assessee had a supervisory PE and risk undertaken in India. (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring AO’s detailed