← All Phrases

“attribution of profits to PE”

International TaxDTAADTAA19 judgments

SHENHZHEN SDG INFORMATION CO. LTD.,DELHI vs. CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 3(1)(2), DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 746/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shenhzhen Sdg Information Co. Ltd., International Taxation-3, C/O- Tass Advisors Llp, 62, New Delhi Lower Ground Floor, Pocket 2, Jasola, New Delhi Pan: Aavcs7426C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Divyanshu Agrawal, Adv. Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.06.2025 Order

Section 263Section 44B

engagement in India is more than 6 months. Therefore, it constitutes a construction PE in India. 15 | P a g e 8.4 Attribution of Profit to PE under Indian DTAAs including India- China DTAA: In general 8.4.1 Once both the thresholds are met, the next question is what would ... introduced for the first time by the OECD in 2010 on the basis of recommendations made in OECD's report on attribution of profit to PE. The idea of bringing FAR analysis for profit 16 | P a g e attribution to PE similar to profit allocation in case

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY-CIT (INT. TAXATION)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 749/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

justified. In assessee's case we notice that the TPO has relied on the OECD report dated 27.07.2010 on Attribution of profits to PE to conclude that 100% of commercial mark up is to be attributed to the Indian Branch. The ld AR submitted that the OECD commentary provides

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE & INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY.CIT OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONSL TAXATION) -2(1) (1) , MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1234/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

justified. In assessee's case we notice that the TPO has relied on the OECD report dated 27.07.2010 on Attribution of profits to PE to conclude that 100% of commercial mark up is to be attributed to the Indian Branch. The ld AR submitted that the OECD commentary provides

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE & INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE JT CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATIONA), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1027/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“I” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (IT) 2 (1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 458/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“I” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JM &\nMS PADMAVATHY S

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 4652/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“I” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JM &\nMS PADMAVATHY S

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 2313/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“I” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JM &\nMS PADMAVATHY S

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1273/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“I” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JM &\nMS PADMAVATHY S

DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1165/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“I” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JM &\nMS PADMAVATHY S

ADIT (IT) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1839/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

justified. In assessee's case we notice that the TPO has relied on the OECD report dated 27.07.2010 on Attribution of profits to PE to conclude that 100% of commercial mark up is to be attributed to the Indian Branch. The ld AR submitted that the OECD commentary provides

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1479/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“I” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JM &\nMS PADMAVATHY S

BNP PARIBAS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONA TAXATION)-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3416/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nFarooq IraniFor Respondent: \nAjay Kumar Sharma
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 270A

{"clean_text": "Page 1\nITA No.3416/Mum/2023\nM/s BNP Paribas Vs. ACIT (IT) Circle 1(3)(1)\nIN THE INCOME TAX

AMADEUS IT GROUP SA,SPAIN vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3175/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B.Vasanta, CIT-DR

survives for taxation. 6.1. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the issue of attribution of profits to PE has been decided by Supreme Court in favor of the appellant for Assessment Years 1996-97 to 2005-06 wherein the court

SAC FINANCE COMANY LTD,HONG KONG vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 2336/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 48Section 92C

Supreme Court in DIT vs M/S Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc) (Appeal (civil) 2914 of 2007) laid down in the context of attribution of profits to PE, if the transfer pricing analysis does not adequately reflect the functions performed, assets utilised and risks assumed by the enterprise

RGA INTERNATIONAL REINSURANCE COMPANY DESIGNATED AUTHORITY COMPQNY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 4(1) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 803/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

SHINHAN BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

ITA 2229/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

ITA Nos. 2227 & 2229/Mum/2017and 7345 & 7347/Mum/2018 CO Nos.: 17 & 18/Mum/ 2021; Assessment years: 2012-13 to 2015-16 Page 1

SHINHAN BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

ITA 2227/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)

ITA Nos. 2227 & 2229/Mum/2017and 7345 & 7347/Mum/2018 CO Nos.: 17 & 18/Mum/ 2021; Assessment years: 2012-13 to 2015-16 Page 1

SHINHAN BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 6994/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 44C

CO Nos.: 114/Mum/2016 and 37/Mum/ 2020 ITA No. 6994/Mum/2012; Assessment year 2008-09 Page 1 of 20 IN THE INCOME

SHINHAN BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 6993/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 90

CO Nos.: 113/Mum/2016 and 36/Mum/ 2020 ITA No. 6993/Mum/2012; Assessment year 2007-08 Page 1 of 29 IN THE INCOME