“construction PE”

International TaxDTAA Article 5DTAA Article 5192 judgments

The decision most relied on for construction PE is National Petroleum Construction Company v. DIT (383 ITR 648), cited in 69 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on construction PE

National Petroleum Construction Company v. DIT

383 ITR 648 · 2016 · High Court

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.

Trib.) 4) TVM Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax

237 ITR 230 · 1999 · Reported

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.

TejaConstrcution v. ACIT

39 SOT 13 · 2010 · ITAT

citing judgments

When an assessee is a sub-contractor, a net profit rate of 7% applied by the CIT(A) is justified.

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.

Scotts Ltd: 31 Taxman 444 (Cal), CIT v. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd.

265 CTR 109 · High Court

citing judgments

The case is authority for the principle that where an Indian entity is given authority to execute local work but overall responsibility remains with a foreign entity, this does not necessarily constitute a consortium, and the foreign entity's liability should be assessed based on the specific contractual terms.

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 construction PE

Mora] Finanz Corporation, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 155/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE ABY T. VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Moraj Finanz Corporation, Navi Mumbai vs. Dclt Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 154/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE ABY T. VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Moraj Finanz Corporation, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 153/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE ABY T. VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

M/S Rathod Developers & Builders, Dharwad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 721/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, JCIT -DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA

Shirish M Dalvi, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cir 29(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4640/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

DCIT Cir 23(3), Mumbai vs. Shirish M Dalvi, Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4317/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

M/S. Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2016-17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2179/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us That The Issues In Asst Year 2016-17 May Be Taken As The Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Thereon Would Apply With Equal Force For The Asst Year 2017-18 Also In View Of Identical Facts Except With Variance In Figures.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘J‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mahindra Homes P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range-7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2016-17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1008/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘J‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DCIT 27(1), Mumbai vs. Gopuram Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 1408/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014

Section 133ASection 143(3)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Accountant Member) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, (Judicial Member

Mrs. Nirmala Subramanian, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-26, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3746/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Cit (A)-26 Mrs. Nirmala Subramanian R.No.331, 3Rd Floor, 406, Vardhaman Market Tower No.6 Sector 17, Vashi, Vashi Station Complex Vs. Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai, Mumbai-400 705 Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahzps4849K Assessee By : Shri Nm Porwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ujjawal Chavan, Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri NM Porwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Chavan, SR AR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 54

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM CIT (A)-26 Mrs. Nirmala Subramanian

Sai Shipping Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 427/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Section 115JSection 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Aby T. Varkey (JM) I.T.A. No. 427/Mum/2022

Jice Academy for Excellence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

ITA No.704/Bang/2022 JICE Academy for Excellence Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

The ACIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Associated Cement Co., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5259/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, MUMBAI Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice President Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member Assistant

M/S. Acc Ltd ( Formely Known As the Associated Cememtn Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4895/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, MUMBAI Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice President Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member Assistant

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Energy Ventures Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partially allowed

ITA 1511/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Karnataka Agrochemical Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-4(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri SreeHariKutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1111/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Commissioner Of Complex, Income Tax, K H Road, Circle – 1 [1][2], Shanti Nagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027. Pan: Aaacb4881D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/02/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & The Facts & Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Refusing To Admit The Appeal Of The Appellant On The Grounds That Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Cannot Be Condoned On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate

Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1263/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Dcit, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Complex, Circle – 11(2), K H Road, Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 027. Pan : Aaacb 4881 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R

Akash Education & Development Trust, Bengaluru vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

M/S. Akkayya Hospitality Services (Formerly Known As Akkayya Consultancy Services), Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2545/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm M/S.Akkayya Hospitality Assistant Commissioner Of Services, Income Tax, (Formerly Known As Akkayya Presently Circle-1[2][1], Consultancy Services), Vs. Bmtc Building, No.21/6, Craig Park Layout, 80 Feet Road, 6Th Block, M.G.Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Aaafz1935B Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Sri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent By: Smt.Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 04.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.04.2022 O R D E R Per George Geroge K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)-1, Bengaluru’S Order Dated 26-09-2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2008-09. 2. The Solitary Issue Argued By The Ld.Ar Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Not Deleting The Entire Disallowance Of Interest Expenditure Made By The Ao (Disallowance Of Interest Expendtiure Made By Ao Rs.3,65,13,949/-).

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM M/s.Akkayya