LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

permanent establishment has observed that: “52. This language has its origins in the draft convention adopted by the League of Nations in 1933 and is acknowledged as the statement of the arm‘s length principle in the context of PEs. The Commentary on Article 7 confirms that the principle reflected in Article 7(2) - corresponds to the arm‘s length

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- NOIDA, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

permanent establishment has observed that: “52. This language has its origins in the draft convention adopted by the League of Nations in 1933 and is acknowledged as the statement of the arm‘s length principle in the context of PEs. The Commentary on Article 7 confirms that the principle reflected in Article 7(2) - corresponds to the arm‘s length

M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

established. It is necessary to keep this distinction in mind." In view of the discussions above it is prayed that the case may be decided after considering the submissions above.” 16. On the other hand, ld. CIT DR, Mrs. Nandita Kanchan vehemently opposed the contentions of the ld. AR and submitted that a search and seizure took place

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

established. It is necessary to keep this distinction in mind." In view of the discussions above it is prayed that the case may be decided after considering the submissions above.” 16. On the other hand, ld. CIT DR, Mrs. Nandita Kanchan vehemently opposed the contentions of the ld. AR and submitted that a search and seizure took place

MAHESHWARI ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Permanent Account Number AAACM1075C 3. Status Company 4. District/Circle/Range Ward-16(1) Assessment year in respect of 5. which it is proposed to issue 2009-10 notice u/s.148. The quantum of income which Rs.25,00,000/- 6. has escaped assessment. Whether the provisions of 7. sec.147(a) or 147(b) are 147(b) applicable or both the sections are applicable

GE NUOVO PIGNONE SPA,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ge Nuovo Pignone Spa Vs. Dcit, International Taxation C/O 6Th Floor, Building No.7 A Circle 1(3)(1) Standard Chartered Building New Delhi Dlf Cyber City, Phase Iii Gurgaon 122 002 Haryana

permanent establishment are taxable in India. Accordingly, Assessing Officer had reason to believe for initiating the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the assessee regarding lack of jurisdiction to assess the assessee is baseless and accordingly, rejected. 3.2. Adverting to section 147, it has been submitted by 'the assessee that the pre-requisite of the section

MAESTRO MULTI STATE COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-39(4), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini

u/s 147 of the Act. The Department failed to produce the assessment folder before the Tribunal. 12. In the above background of the case, I find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Shri Jai Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd has held as under : “Pursuant to a scrutiny of the return filed

MAESTRO MULTI STATE COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-39(4), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini

u/s 147 of the Act. The Department failed to produce the assessment folder before the Tribunal. 12. In the above background of the case, I find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Shri Jai Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd has held as under : “Pursuant to a scrutiny of the return filed

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ZTE CORPORATION,

In the result, this ground is

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:

147 (Del), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court approved 35% profits attributable to PE on account of marketing activities in India. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed as under: “While restricting the attribution to 35 per cent, the reason given by the Tribunal was that profit attributed to manufacturing activity and R&D activities

ZTE CORPORATION vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, this ground is

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:

147 (Del), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court approved 35% profits attributable to PE on account of marketing activities in India. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed as under: “While restricting the attribution to 35 per cent, the reason given by the Tribunal was that profit attributed to manufacturing activity and R&D activities

ZTE CORPORATION vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, this ground is

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:

147 (Del), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court approved 35% profits attributable to PE on account of marketing activities in India. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed as under: “While restricting the attribution to 35 per cent, the reason given by the Tribunal was that profit attributed to manufacturing activity and R&D activities

M/S. ZTE CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, this ground is

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:

147 (Del), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court approved 35% profits attributable to PE on account of marketing activities in India. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed as under: “While restricting the attribution to 35 per cent, the reason given by the Tribunal was that profit attributed to manufacturing activity and R&D activities

DDIT, NOIDA vs. M/S. PT L.P. DISPLAY INDONESIA, INDONESIA

In the result, appeals of the assessee of PT

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1845 To 1847/Del/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2006-07 वष" Pt.Lp Display Indonesia, C/O-Pds Legal, Advocates & Solicitors, Office No.-7, 1St Floor, Atmaram Mansion Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaccl2631H Vs The Ddit [International Transaction] …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Sector-24, Noida. आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1887 & 1888/Del/2014 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06 वष" The Ddit [International Transaction] Aayakar Bhawan, 5Th Floor, ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Plot No.A-2D, Sector-24, Noida. Vs Pt.Lp Display Indonesia, C/O-Pds Legal, Advocates & Solicitors, Office No.-7, 1St Floor, Atmaram Mansion Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Pan-Aaccl2631H आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1885 & 1886/Del/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years 2005-06 & 2006-07 वष"

Permanent Establishment (in short “PE”) in India and if the PE existed what would be the income attributable to such alleged PE. Assessment Years 2004-05 & Others 4. Briefly in the facts of the case, TDS survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (in short “LGEIL”) on 24.06.2010. L.G.Korea

DDIT, NOIDA vs. M/S. PT L.P. DISPLAY INDONESIA, INDONESIA

In the result, appeals of the assessee of PT

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1845 To 1847/Del/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2006-07 वष" Pt.Lp Display Indonesia, C/O-Pds Legal, Advocates & Solicitors, Office No.-7, 1St Floor, Atmaram Mansion Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaccl2631H Vs The Ddit [International Transaction] …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Sector-24, Noida. आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1887 & 1888/Del/2014 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06 वष" The Ddit [International Transaction] Aayakar Bhawan, 5Th Floor, ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Plot No.A-2D, Sector-24, Noida. Vs Pt.Lp Display Indonesia, C/O-Pds Legal, Advocates & Solicitors, Office No.-7, 1St Floor, Atmaram Mansion Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Pan-Aaccl2631H आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1885 & 1886/Del/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years 2005-06 & 2006-07 वष"

Permanent Establishment (in short “PE”) in India and if the PE existed what would be the income attributable to such alleged PE. Assessment Years 2004-05 & Others 4. Briefly in the facts of the case, TDS survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (in short “LGEIL”) on 24.06.2010. L.G.Korea

M/S. PT. LP DISPLAY INDONESIA,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeals of the assessee of PT

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1845 To 1847/Del/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2006-07 वष" Pt.Lp Display Indonesia, C/O-Pds Legal, Advocates & Solicitors, Office No.-7, 1St Floor, Atmaram Mansion Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaccl2631H Vs The Ddit [International Transaction] …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Sector-24, Noida. आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1887 & 1888/Del/2014 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06 वष" The Ddit [International Transaction] Aayakar Bhawan, 5Th Floor, ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Plot No.A-2D, Sector-24, Noida. Vs Pt.Lp Display Indonesia, C/O-Pds Legal, Advocates & Solicitors, Office No.-7, 1St Floor, Atmaram Mansion Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Pan-Aaccl2631H आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1885 & 1886/Del/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years 2005-06 & 2006-07 वष"

Permanent Establishment (in short “PE”) in India and if the PE existed what would be the income attributable to such alleged PE. Assessment Years 2004-05 & Others 4. Briefly in the facts of the case, TDS survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (in short “LGEIL”) on 24.06.2010. L.G.Korea

M/S. PT. LP DISPLAY INDONESIA,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeals of the assessee of PT

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1845 To 1847/Del/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2006-07 वष" Pt.Lp Display Indonesia, C/O-Pds Legal, Advocates & Solicitors, Office No.-7, 1St Floor, Atmaram Mansion Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaccl2631H Vs The Ddit [International Transaction] …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Sector-24, Noida. आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1887 & 1888/Del/2014 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06 वष" The Ddit [International Transaction] Aayakar Bhawan, 5Th Floor, ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Plot No.A-2D, Sector-24, Noida. Vs Pt.Lp Display Indonesia, C/O-Pds Legal, Advocates & Solicitors, Office No.-7, 1St Floor, Atmaram Mansion Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Pan-Aaccl2631H आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1885 & 1886/Del/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years 2005-06 & 2006-07 वष"

Permanent Establishment (in short “PE”) in India and if the PE existed what would be the income attributable to such alleged PE. Assessment Years 2004-05 & Others 4. Briefly in the facts of the case, TDS survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (in short “LGEIL”) on 24.06.2010. L.G.Korea

M/S. PT. LP DISPLAY INDONESIA,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeals of the assessee of PT

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1845 To 1847/Del/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2006-07 वष" Pt.Lp Display Indonesia, C/O-Pds Legal, Advocates & Solicitors, Office No.-7, 1St Floor, Atmaram Mansion Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaccl2631H Vs The Ddit [International Transaction] …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Sector-24, Noida. आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1887 & 1888/Del/2014 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06 वष" The Ddit [International Transaction] Aayakar Bhawan, 5Th Floor, ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Plot No.A-2D, Sector-24, Noida. Vs Pt.Lp Display Indonesia, C/O-Pds Legal, Advocates & Solicitors, Office No.-7, 1St Floor, Atmaram Mansion Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Pan-Aaccl2631H आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1885 & 1886/Del/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years 2005-06 & 2006-07 वष"

Permanent Establishment (in short “PE”) in India and if the PE existed what would be the income attributable to such alleged PE. Assessment Years 2004-05 & Others 4. Briefly in the facts of the case, TDS survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (in short “LGEIL”) on 24.06.2010. L.G.Korea

MOTOROLA INC,USA vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings as confirmed by the Hon'ble DRP u/s 144C(13) read with section 147 of the Act is, therefore, bad in law and requires to be annulled. Fee received by the appellant 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred and the Hon'ble DRP has further