Contract with GMR, is
attributable to the Chennai PE of the appellant.
4. Without prejudice the Ground no. 3, Ld AO/DRP erred in attributing ... spares from
outside India for the GMR project to the Chennai PE.
5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case
cost to cost basis. The ld AO held that the assessee has PE in India and
according to DTAA and business connection according to India ... hence
computed the profit of Rs.30626180/- attributable to such PE. Regarding reimbursement of
Rs.52452014/- as it has effect of reducing the service
DTAA. It was further held
that the assessee has a fixed place PE in India in the form of an office in New
Delhi ... South India. Furthermore, that
the customer of the assessee constitutes dependent agent PE of AAP in India as
per the provisions of Article
discriminatory in favour of an Indian enterprise vis-a-vis PE of a Canadian enterprise. The AO rejected the plea of the assessee ... terms of Article 7(4) of the treaty the profits of the PE are to be computed "in accordance with the provisions
agent. He held that the assessee was
having fixed place PE/dependent agent PE. On this basis, he attributed
certain profit as revenue receipt from ... next issue raised in these appeals relates to the existence of
dependent PE in India/fixed place PE in India and the attribution of
income
BENCH:
Al l t he ca p ti oned a p pe ... pe a l a nd C r oss O b je c ti on
r e l a ti ng to a sse ssme
assessee's claim that it had no Permanent Establishment
('PE') in India and as such, the resultant income from supply ... asked to explain why
BTIN may not be treated as the PE of the assessee as it was held in
earlier assessment years
order of the Ld. AO that
appellant has a Permanent Establishment ('PE') in the form of
3 ITA Nos.3760 & 4242 ... order of the Ld. AO that the
appellant has a dependent agent PE in the form of ESPN India
under Article
Article 5 of the tax treaty since the assessee has a
PE in India in the form of its liaison office and the Indian group ... income, the assessing officer passed the order holding that there is PE of the
assessee in India and taxable income from supply of hardware
Tribunal erred in concluding that the
Appellant had a Permanent Establishment (PE) within the
meaning of Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance
Agreement (DTAA ... Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the Appellant had a
PE in India is perverse and contrary to the facts and material on
record
