← All Phrases

“agency PE”

International TaxDTAA Article 5DTAA Article 5218 judgments

The decision most relied on for agency PE is DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co. (292 ITR 416), cited in 360 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on agency PE

DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co.
292 ITR 416 · 2007 · Supreme Court
360
citing judgments

A Permanent Establishment (PE) signifies a foreign enterprise's virtual projection into another country, with a fixed place PE existing where an MNE's business is wholly or partly carried on. A dependent agent PE requires the agent to act as such and/or have the authority to conclude contracts for the foreign enterprise under DTAA provisions.

Set Satellite Pte Ltd. v. CIT
307 ITR 205 · 2008 · High Court
96
citing judgments

If a Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment (DAPE) is remunerated at arm's length based on transfer pricing principles, no further profits can be attributed to the foreign enterprise. The principles of profit attribution under DTAA Article 7 are pari-materia to Section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

National Petroleum Construction Company v. DIT
383 ITR 648 · 2016 · High Court
69
citing judgments

An Indian agent providing marketing services, without the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of a foreign company, does not constitute a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) for the foreign company in India under DTAA provisions.

Delmas France v. Asstt. DIT (IT)
17 Taxmann.com 91 · 2012 · ITAT
49
citing judgments

The ITAT evaluates the profit neutrality theory for a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE), stating that unlike a service PE, a DAPE assumes entrepreneurship risk which must be considered for arm's length remuneration.

Trib.) 4) TVM Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax
237 ITR 230 · 1999 · Reported
47
citing judgments

A non-resident entity's activities in India are assessed for Permanent Establishment (PE) under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements, considering types like fixed place, construction, and agency PE, and the applicability of presumptive taxation under sections such as 44BBB.

4) DIT v. B4U International
374 ITR 453 · 2015 · High Court
39
citing judgments

An agent is considered independent for the purposes of Article 5(5) of the India-Mauritius treaty if the agent works for more than one principal, regardless of whether the principal has only one agent in India. The focus is on the agent's independence, not the principal's exclusive use of an agent.

Co. Ltd. v. DDIT(IT)
55 Taxmann.com 520 · 2015 · ITAT
36
citing judgments

A foreign company engaged in the reinsurance business is not considered to have a fixed permanent establishment or an agency permanent establishment in India through its Indian subsidiary, provided specific conditions under Article 5 of the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement are not met.

Western Union Financial Services Inc. v. ADIT
104 ITD 34 · 2007 · ITAT
26
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.

Judgments citing agency PE

Ncr Global Solutions Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2)(2) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 381/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B.Vasanta, CIT-DR

erred in confirming the allegation that NCR India is acting as an agent on behalf of the Appellant and thus, the Appellant has an Agency PE in India without any factual foundation / citing any basis. 4.1. The learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP has failed to prove on facts or provide ... cogent reason or basis for concluding that the Appellant has an Agency PE in India. 4.2. The learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP has erred, in law and on facts, in alleging Agency PE on the surmise that NCR India works mainly or wholly on behalf of the Appellant, NCR India

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

ITA 2033/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. M.S. Nethrapal, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151

well settled principle of law it is held that ld. AO and DRP erred in holding that assessee constitute a fixed place PE and Agency PE without any basis and holding that third party accommodation in India from whom the assessee earns commission on booking of rooms by end user

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

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

ITA 1664/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

fact that the sale transaction between the Assessee and KDID was on a principal to principal basis. The assessee does not have an Agency PE in India. The assessee is a Hong Kong based company and renders support to sales and marketing of Kyocera Document Solutions sales companies and distributors ... emphasized that the conditions of Article 5(5) of the India-Hong Kong DTAA that for foreign enterprise to have an "Agency PE" in India, such dependent agent in India habitually exercises in India an authority to conclude contracts for or on behalf of the foreign enterprise; or habitually maintains

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

ITA 380/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

fact that the sale transaction between the Assessee and KDID was on a principal to principal basis. The assessee does not have an Agency PE in India. The assessee is a Hong Kong based company and renders support to sales and marketing of Kyocera Document Solutions sales companies and distributors ... emphasized that the conditions of Article 5(5) of the India-Hong Kong DTAA that for foreign enterprise to have an "Agency PE" in India, such dependent agent in India habitually exercises in India an authority to conclude contracts for or on behalf of the foreign enterprise; or habitually maintains

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

ITA 3546/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

fact that the sale transaction between the Assessee and KDID was on a principal to principal basis. The assessee does not have an Agency PE in India. The assessee is a Hong Kong based company and renders support to sales and marketing of Kyocera Document Solutions sales companies and distributors ... emphasized that the conditions of Article 5(5) of the India-Hong Kong DTAA that for foreign enterprise to have an "Agency PE" in India, such dependent agent in India habitually exercises in India an authority to conclude contracts for or on behalf of the foreign enterprise; or habitually maintains

Oracle Systems Corporation, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

ITA 3313/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Indruj Sngh Rai, Spl. Counsel
Section 234ASection 250(1)(a)Section 9(1)(vi)

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 5(5) of the DTAA) for allegedly being a depended agent and not being an independent agent. 3. That ... Corpn. Vs. ADDCIT viz. Article 5(1) for Fixed Place PE; Article 5(2)(l) for Employee based PE; and Article 5(4) for Agency PE. Accordingly, the AO has considered Rs 4,96,00,000/- as revenue attributable to Indian PE i.e., Research and Development activity carried

Oracle Systems Corporation, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

ITA 1836/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Indruj Sngh Rai, Spl. Counsel
Section 234ASection 250(1)(a)Section 9(1)(vi)

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 5(5) of the DTAA) for allegedly being a depended agent and not being an independent agent. 3. That ... Corpn. Vs. ADDCIT viz. Article 5(1) for Fixed Place PE; Article 5(2)(l) for Employee based PE; and Article 5(4) for Agency PE. Accordingly, the AO has considered Rs 4,96,00,000/- as revenue attributable to Indian PE i.e., Research and Development activity carried

Oracle Systems Corporation, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

ITA 1835/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Indruj Sngh Rai, Spl. Counsel
Section 234ASection 250(1)(a)Section 9(1)(vi)

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 5(5) of the DTAA) for allegedly being a depended agent and not being an independent agent. 3. That ... Corpn. Vs. ADDCIT viz. Article 5(1) for Fixed Place PE; Article 5(2)(l) for Employee based PE; and Article 5(4) for Agency PE. Accordingly, the AO has considered Rs 4,96,00,000/- as revenue attributable to Indian PE i.e., Research and Development activity carried

Oracle Systems Corporation, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

ITA 1834/DEL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Indruj Sngh Rai, Spl. Counsel
Section 234ASection 250(1)(a)Section 9(1)(vi)

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 5(5) of the DTAA) for allegedly being a depended agent and not being an independent agent. 3. That ... Corpn. Vs. ADDCIT viz. Article 5(1) for Fixed Place PE; Article 5(2)(l) for Employee based PE; and Article 5(4) for Agency PE. Accordingly, the AO has considered Rs 4,96,00,000/- as revenue attributable to Indian PE i.e., Research and Development activity carried

Oracle Systems Corporation, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

ITA 1833/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Indruj Sngh Rai, Spl. Counsel
Section 234ASection 250(1)(a)Section 9(1)(vi)

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 5(5) of the DTAA) for allegedly being a depended agent and not being an independent agent. 3. That ... Corpn. Vs. ADDCIT viz. Article 5(1) for Fixed Place PE; Article 5(2)(l) for Employee based PE; and Article 5(4) for Agency PE. Accordingly, the AO has considered Rs 4,96,00,000/- as revenue attributable to Indian PE i.e., Research and Development activity carried

Asia Today Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 1403/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Asia Today Limited, Asst. Director Of Income C/O. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Tax (International Ltd., Vs. Taxation)-2(2), 135, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Scindia House, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Bellard Estate, Pan: Aabca0249F Mumbai - 400039 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2007, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The Relevant Facts For Adjudication Of This Appeal Are As Under: The Assessee, Being A Foreign Telecasting Company Incorporated In Mauritius & Having Tax Residency Certificate Of Mauritius , During The Ay Under Consideration Was Engaged In The Production & Acquiring Rights Of Various Television Films Including Feature Films, As A Copy Right Owner/Holder Of Various Hindi Feature Films Produced & Censored In India, As Mentioned In Schedule ‘C’ Annexed With The ‘Agreement Of 2 M/S Asia Today Ltd. Vs Asst. Dit (Int. Taxation)-2(2)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

DTAA the transaction between the assessee and Indian Company to whom license was granted by virtue of the agreement cannot be considered as Agency PE as the Indian assessee is not exclusively dealing with the assessee and referred to the receipts from another company 20th Century Fox to submit that ... assessee is also dealing with the other Non Resident Companies, so assessee cannot be considered as Agency PE within the definition of Permanent Establishment. 11) We have examined this aspect also. As rightly held by the CIT (A) even if income arises to the Non-Resident due to the business

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India, whether as fixed place

ITA 4092/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 144CSection 9(1)(i)

assessee does not have any PE in India. The facts on record show that there is neither Service PE nor Agency PE in the form of SRSIPL Considering the facts in totality in the light of the relevant provisions of the law and the DTAA and the judicial decisions referred ... result, we hold that the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India, whether as fixed place PE, service PE or dependent agency PE, in relation to its reinsurance business comprising the run off portfolio or its retrocession business with SRIB. The reinsurance premium from Indian cedents

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that the assessee does not have

ITA 3178/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
Section 144CSection 9(1)(i)

assessee does not have any PE in India. The facts on record show that there is neither Service PE nor Agency PE in the form of SRSIPL Considering the facts in totality in the light of the relevant provisions of the law and the DTAA and the judicial decisions referred ... result, we hold that the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India, whether as fixed place PE, service PE or dependent agency PE, in relation to its reinsurance business comprising the run off portfolio or its retrocession business with SRIB. The reinsurance premium from Indian cedents

Skechers Sarl, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 2028/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234BSection 270A

India as per Article 7 of India-Swiss DTAA. 6.9 On the contrary, the Ld.DR submitted that, the assessee has Dependent Agency PE in India. He submitted that based on the agreement and various obligation on the part of the assessee, the array of services rendered by the assessee qualify

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

ITA 1885/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

other business 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, Service PE) in India in accordance with Article 5 of the India- Ireland Tax Treaty or a business connection ... DAPE) observed that the present case CIPL works mainly or wholly on behalf of the non-resident assessee, and therefore, the assessee has an agency PE in India in the form of CIPL. 3.5 In view of the above facts, the AO issued show cause notice dated 12.02.2024, to which

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

ITA 1892/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

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)

Section 234ASection 270A

Article 5(5) of the DTAA were not satisfied. The Ld. CIT(A)’s categorical finding that conditions and requirements of agency PE not satisfied was upheld by the Tribunal in first round of appeal. 13. The Ld. CIT-DR argued vehemently and defended the order of Ld. AO/TPO

ACIT, Circle 1(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Concentrix Cvg Customer Management Group Inc., Usa

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 724/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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)

Section 234ASection 270A

Article 5(5) of the DTAA were not satisfied. The Ld. CIT(A)’s categorical finding that conditions and requirements of agency PE not satisfied was upheld by the Tribunal in first round of appeal. 13. The Ld. CIT-DR argued vehemently and defended the order of Ld. AO/TPO

DCIT, Circle-1(2)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Concentrix Cvg Customer Management Group Inc., Usa

In the result, the assessee's both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 723/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 234ASection 270A

Article 5(5) of the DTAA were not satisfied. The Ld. CIT(A)'s categorical finding that conditions and requirements of agency PE not satisfied was upheld by the Tribunal in first round of appeal. 13. The Ld. CIT-DR argued vehemently and defended the order of Ld. AO/TPO

Concentrix Cvg Customer Management Group Inc., United States vs. ACIT, (Int.Taxation) 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 668/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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)

Section 234ASection 270A

Article 5(5) of the DTAA were not satisfied. The Ld. CIT(A)’s categorical finding that conditions and requirements of agency PE not satisfied was upheld by the Tribunal in first round of appeal. 13. The Ld. CIT-DR argued vehemently and defended the order of Ld. AO/TPO

Concentrix Cvg Customer Management Group Inc., United States vs. ACIT, (Int.Taxation) 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 667/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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)

Section 234ASection 270A

Article 5(5) of the DTAA were not satisfied. The Ld. CIT(A)’s categorical finding that conditions and requirements of agency PE not satisfied was upheld by the Tribunal in first round of appeal. 13. The Ld. CIT-DR argued vehemently and defended the order of Ld. AO/TPO