Lintas & Paines Now Linikleters , vs Assessee on 23 November, 2012
5. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Tribunal has
interpreted the expression "directly or indirectly attributable" in such a way that
the entire income from the Indian projects is to be regarded as income attributable
to the PE irrespective of whether the PE was involved in execution of the said
projects or not. He contended that this conclusion drawn by the Tribunal is
contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishikawajima-
harima Heavy Industries Ltd. vs.. Director of Income-tax, Mumbai 288 ITR 408
wherein it was held in para No. 73 that for the profits to be attributable directly or
indirectly, the PE must be involved in the activity giving rise to such profits. He
contended that the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal thus is contrary to the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Ishikawajima-harima Heavy
8
M.A.No.223/Mum/2011
Industries Ltd. (supra) which by itself constitutes a mistake apparent from record
as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch
Stock Exchange Ltd. 305 ITR 227.