Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 934 - AT - Income TaxDependent Agent PE of the assessee company in India - Income accrued in India - HELD THAT:- Since the lower authorities following the orders of the preceding years [2020 (9) TMI 922 - ITAT DELHI] have held that M/s. Mitsui & Co. Ltd. has been constituted as Dependent Agent PE of the assessee company in India , therefore, following the consistent decisions of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the preceding assessment years and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice against the decision of the Tribunal we hold that MIPL is not a Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment of the assessee. No attribution of income should be made to MIPL Attribution of profits to DAPE [Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment]- HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the consistent decisions of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case [2020 (9) TMI 922 - ITAT DELHI] also relying decision of the preceding assessment years [2020 (2) TMI 1053 - ITAT DELHI] and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice we hold that no further profit could be attributed since assessee is not a Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment. Commission on the total sale - CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO observing that TPO has accepted the payment being at arm’s length - HELD THAT:- We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. First of all this issue becomes academic in nature in view of our finding that MIPL is not dependent agency PE and therefore no income is attributable to the assessee and therefore when there is no income there is no question on any disallowance - such commission claimed by the assessee has been accepted in earlier years by the Ld. CIT(A) and the revenue had not preferred any appeal although they had filed appeal against the order on other issues decided by the Ld. CIT(A) in favour of the assessee. Merit in the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that once the department has accepted the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) in the preceding years the said view cannot be disputed in the current year in view of the principles of rule of consistency.
|