Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: expatriates in Honda Motor Co. Ltd., Noida vs Dcit (International Taxation), Noida on 10 May, 2019Matching Fragments
2. That the AO/DRP erred in upholding the validity of the re-
assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act when Page | 1 initiation of proceedings c d not satisfy necessary requisites contained in Section 147 of the Act and there being no reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax and escaped assessment. Without prejudice
3. That the AO/DRP erred in concluding that the Appellant had a Permanent Establishment (PE) under Article 5 of the Indo-Japan DTAA given the fact that necessary "requisites of creating a PE under Article 5 of DTAA were lacking in the present case. 3.1 That the AO/DRP erred in coming to the conclusion that their existed a PE of the Appellant in India while relying on the statements of expatriate employees of Honda Cars India Ltd. (HCIL) which were inadmissible evidence in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khader Khan Son (254 CTR 228)(SC). 3.2 That the AO/DRP erred in coming to the conclusion that expatriate employees working in Honda Cars India Ltd were working on behalf of the Appellant and as such controlled the day-to-day functioning of HCIL in terms of technology, economic and other control. 3.3 That the AO/DRP completely failed to appreciate that in terms of Article 5(9) of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement between India and Japan (DTAA) control of holding company over subsidiary does not in itself create a Permanent Establishment of the non-resident. 3.4 That the AO/DRP erred in law in selectively relying on the statement of expatriate employees and failed to appreciate the true intention of the statements which evidenced that the expatriates were working only for HCIL in India.
4. That the AO/DRP erred in coming to the conclusion that HCIL is dependent upon the appellant for employees, technology and economically when no employee has been seconded by the appellant to HCIL, no technology has been provided by the appellant to HCIL and HCIL has no economic dependence on appellant.
5. That the AO/DRP erred in coming to the conclusion that their existed a PE of the Appellant in India while relying on the statements of expatriate employees of Honda Cars India Ltd. ("HCIL") which were inadmissible evidence in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Qadar Khan & Sons (254 CTR 228) 5.1 That the AO/DRP erred in coming to the conclusion that expatriate employees working in Honda Cars India Ltd were working on behalf of the Appellant and as such controlled the day-to-day functioning of HCIL in terms of technology, economic and other control when no employee was seconded by the appellant to HCIL. 5.2 That the AO/DRP completely failed to appreciate that even assuming control of non-resident company over the resident company does not in itself create a Permanent Establishment of the non-resident in terms of Article 5(6) of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement between India and Thailand ('DTAA'). 5.3 That the AO/DRP erred in law in selectively relying on the statement of expatriate employees and failed to appreciate the true intention of the statements which evidenced that the expatriates were working only for HCIL in India.
4. That the AO/DRP erred in coming to the conclusion that HCIL is dependent upon the appellant for employees, technology and economically when no employee has been seconded by the appellant to HCIL, no technology has been provided by the Page | 6 appellant to HCIL and HCIL has no economic dependence on appellant.
5. That the AO/DRP erred in coming to the conclusion that their existed a PE of the Appellant in India while relying on the statements of expatriate employees of Honda Cars India Ltd. ("HCIL") which were inadmissible evidence in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Qadar Khan & Sons (254 CTR 228) 5.1. That the AO/DRP erred in coming to the conclusion that expatriate employees working in Honda Cars India Ltd were working on behalf of the Appellant and as such controlled the day-to-day functioning of HCIL in terms of technology, economic and other control when no employee was seconded by the appellant to HCIL. 5.2 That the AO/DRP completely failed to appreciate that even assuming control of non-resident company over the resident company does not in itself create a Permanent Establishment of the non-resident in terms of Article 5(6) of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement between India and Thailand ('DTAA'). 5.3 That the AO/DRP erred in law in selectively relying on the statement of expatriate employees and failed to appreciate the true intention of the statements which evidenced that the expatriates were working only for HCIL in India.
5. That the AO/DRP erred in coming to the conclusion that their existed a PE of the Appellant in India while relying on the statements of expatriate employees of Honda Cars India Ltd. ("HCIL") which were inadmissible evidence in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Qadar Khan & Sons (254 CTR 228) 5.1 That the AO/DRP erred in coming to the conclusion that expatriate employees working in Honda Cars India Ltd were working on behalf of the Appellant and as such controlled the day-to-day functioning of HCIL in terms of technology, economic and other control when no employee was seconded by the appellant to HCIL. 5.2 That the AO/DRP completely failed to appreciate that even assuming control of non-resident company over the resident company does not in itself create a Permanent Establishment of the non-resident in terms of Article 5(6) of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement between India and Thailand ('DTAA'). 5.3 That the AO/DRP erred in law in selectively relying on the statement of expatriate employees and failed to appreciate the true Page | 9 intention of the statements which evidenced that the expatriates were working only for HCIL in India.