Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)Ge Engine Services Malaysia Sdn Bhd, New ... vs Adit, New Delhi on 27 January, 2017
However, in the case of GE Energy Parts Inc. vs ADIT (supra)
also, it is held that it is not critical that expatriates from each country should
be in India. The Ld.DR for the Revenue stressed that on account of
contribution by various entities, goodwill of business was achieved by the role
of secondment employees hence, payment of Royalty. The Ld.DR for the
Revenue placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below.
M/S Dit (International Taxation), ... vs M/S Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc on 9 July, 2007
Our attention was drawn to the
judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Principal Officer, Honda
Access Asia and Oceania Co.Ltd. vs ADIT, Noida & Ors. and other connected
matters in C.A.No.19659/2017, judgement dated 23.11.2017 under which the
case of Honda Motors Co.Ltd. and also LGEIL was decided on the basis that
once the DRP has found that there is no PE in India, then the re-assessment
proceedings need to be withdrawn. Vide lead order in SLP (C)
No(s).24455/2014 and other connected SLPs, judgement dated 16.01.2018,
following the earlier order in Honda Access Asia and Oceanic Co.(Supra), as
DRP in present appeals had found that there is no PE India, consequently the
reassessment proceedings were dropped. In the said bunch of appeals,
one of the petition M/s L. G. Korea Co. Ltd. made a prayer for permission
to withdraw SLP and pursue the statutory remedy under the
11 ITA No.1845 /Del/2014 & Others
Assessment Years 2004-05 & Others
Income Tax Act and the same was allowed.
Asstt Director Of Income Tax I New Delhi vs M/S E Funds It Solution Inc on 24 October, 2017
In the judgement of this Court dated 24.10.2017 in Asstt. DIT
vs E-funds IT Solutions Inc. [2017] 86 taxmann.com 240/251 Taxman
280/399 ITR 34 (SC) and connected matters, it has been held that
once arm's length principle has been satisfied, there can be no further
profit attributable to a person even if it has a permanent establishment
in India.
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd on 23 May, 2007
Various notices in this regard were issued to the assessee and then
return of income was filed on 08.11.2011. The assessee sought copy of reasons
recorded for re-opening the assessment, which were supplied to the assessee and
objections were filed against the initiation of re-assessment proceedings. The
same were disposed off by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 19.11.2012.
Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock
Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 291 ITR 500 (SC) and other decisions, the Assessing Officer
observed that at the time of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act, the Assessing
Officer is not required to establish that there is escapement of income; mere
bonafide reasons to believe that there is escapement of income is sufficient for
issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The objection of the assessee, on the other
hand, was that the reasons do not reflect any tenable or sustainable basis for
concluding that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment in the
hands of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the conditions
for assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act are fully satisfied and the initiation
of re-assessment proceedings in the case u/s 148 of the Act was lawful. The
Assessing Officer also observed that the jurisdiction of persons being non-
resident including foreign companies was based on having PE or having business
connection or having any source of income accruing or arising or deemed to be
accruing or arising in the areas within Indian territories. He concluded by stating
6 ITA No.1845 /Del/2014 & Others
Assessment Years 2004-05 & Others
that the survey proceedings had established business connection and PE of PT LP
Indonesia. Further, it was observed that the expatriate employees of L.G. Philips
Korea, the other assessee before us, not only represented LG.Korea, but also
worked for its other affiliates and subsidiaries. As far as PTLP Indonesia was
concerned, it was also held that it had fixed place of business in the office of
LGEIL. The expatriates working in India were employees of parent company of PT
LP Indonesia and also at times, employees of non-resident company PT LP
Indonesia. It was also the responsibility of expatriate employees not only to look
after the interest of parent company but as well as other subsidiaries. The
Assessing Officer concluded by holding that "merely having separate legal
corporate entity would not prevent the subsidiary from being the PE of the
establishment if other conditions of Article 5 are being met." The objections of the
assessee to the reasons recorded with regard to it [PTLP Indonesia] having
business connection in India in terms of section 9(1)(i) of the Act were held to be
misconceived, irrelevant and immaterial.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, A.P. vs Ashoka Engineering Co., Grafik India ... on 17 January, 1992
25. Now, coming to the appeals of assessee for Assessment Years 2007-08 &
2009-10 which are dismissed by the CIT(A) on the technical ground that the
PAN quoted in the Memo of appeal was not that of the assessee but that of the
Authorized signatory. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Ashoka Engg.Co.
[1992] 194 ITR 645 (SC) has held as under:-
Article 7 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Honda Motor India Pvt. Ltd., Gautam Budh ... vs Assessee on 7 January, 2016
22. Once the international transaction, if any, had been found to be at arm's
length in the TP proceedings carried out in the case of LGEIL, then the entire
question of PE becomes academic in nature. We find support from the ratio
laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Motors Co. Ltd. vs
ADIT, Noida [2018] 92 taxmann.com 353 (SC). It has been laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) that where once the arm's length principle has
been satisfied then there could be no further profit attributable to a person,
even if it had PE in India. Therefore, it was further held that where notice was
issued to the assessee for re-assessment based only on allegation that it had
PE in India, said notice could not be sustained, once arm's length procedure
has been followed. Accordingly we hold that in any case, transaction has been
found to arm's length then the entire question of PE becomes academic and
there is no merit in the re-assessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act.
As far as the objections of the Ld.DR for the Revenue is concerned, existence of
PE of the assessee in India under Article 5(1)(i) of the DTAA i.e. fixed place of
business or place of management is available to the assessee in India, then
also the consequent reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee
u/s 147 of the Act do not survive. Thus, the preliminary issue raised by the
assessee is allowed. The issue raised in Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-
07 in the case of PT. LP. Display Indonesia is similar and following the same
parity of reasoning, the said issue is allowed.
1