Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - ... vs Mitsui & Company Ltd on 9 November, 2022

Author: Manmohan

Bench: Manmohan, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

                              $~1
                              *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                              +     ITA 321/2018
                                    THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -
                                    INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2                   ..... Appellant
                                                 Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate

                                                       versus

                                    MITSUI & COMPANY LTD.                     ..... Respondent
                                                 Through: Mr. Ved Jain, Advocate.

                                    CORAM:
                                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
                                    HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

                                                       ORDER

% 09.11.2022 In the present appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been raised by the appellant-Revenue:-

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the ITAT erred in holding that Liaison Office of the assessee did not constitute a permanent Establishment, liable to tax in India when the said office was clearly a fixed place and the activities carried out, could not be said to be preparatory or auxiliary in nature?

2. Whether ITAT/CIT(A) erred in holding that the Liaison office does not constitute PE?

3. Whether ITAT/CIT(A) erred in holding that no income is liable to attributable in India even MIPL is taken as Dependent Agency PE to the assessee in India?

Admittedly, the learned predecessor Division Bench of this Court in the case of the respondent-assessee itself in ITA 902/2009 decided on 12th October, 2017 after considering the survey report held that the Liaison office of the assessee did not constitute a Permanent Establishment (for short 'PE'). Consequently, the first two substantial questions of law do not arise for consideration in the present appeal.

As far as the third substantial question of law is concerned, this Court finds that both CIT(A) and ITAT have given concurrent findings of fact that MIPL is not performing additional function and in absence of material, it cannot be taken as dependant agency PE to the assessee liable to tax in India. Since the said finding has not been challenged on the ground of perversity, even the third substantial question of law does not arise for consideration.

Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.

MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J NOVEMBER 9, 2022 js Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:10.11.2022 18:44:38