GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (1) TMI 1106 - ITAT DELHI

2016 (1) TMI 1106 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Permanent Establishment(PE) in India - whether assessee only having activities that are proprietary or auxiliary in nature - Held that:- We have observed from the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has been involved in supplying the literature relating to marketing and sales without any participation in actual sales activity. The Israeli company is selling the products to the distributors as per the requirements directly from Israel, and also make .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is merely in the nature to facilitate the contract between the distributors and the Israeli company. The distribution contract, per se at page _____ of the paper book, do not result into any generation of income and, therefore, the activities of the assessee have to be definitely considered to be proprietary and auxiliary in nature. The ld. AR has brought to our notice RBI approval, at page 10 of the paper book, which has been received by the assessee, for the purposes of undertaking liaison act .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed in favour of assessee. - I.T.A .No.-3099/Del/2009 - Dated:- 21-1-2016 - SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Smt. Rasmita Jha, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Sh. Ved Jain, CA ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A) s-XXIX, New Delhi vide his order dated 26/03/2009 for A.Y. 2005-06 on the following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 28.12.06. The return was filed in response to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on 04.01.06. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. The assessee is a liaison office in India of company incorporated in Israel. In Israel the company is engaged in the development, manufacture and sale of Internet Traffic Management Solution under the style and name Radware Limited. The ld. AO further noted that in India, the liaison office is undertaking activities and acting as a communication ch .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er of the ld. AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 3.1. The ld. CIT(A) considered the provisions of Indo Israel double taxation avoidance agreement and held that the assessee was not a PE but was having activities in nature of proprietary and auxiliary services. The ld. CIT(A) placed its reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of UAE Exchange Centre Limited vs. Union of India and Anr., reported in 313 ITR 94, and deleted the addition ma .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, manufacture and sale of Internet Traffic Management Solution. The ld. AR further submitted that Indian liaison office is undertaking solely liaison activities, and are acting purely as a communication channel between its head office in Israel, and parties in India. The ld. AR stated across the bar that the assessee is not carrying on any activity of a trading, commercial or industrial in nature, and does not have any business income arising in India. 6.2. The ld. AR further submitted that, it .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h the Indian liaison office. 6.3. The ld. AR contended that the activities carried on by the Indian liaison office are covered under article V of the Indo Israel DTAA. The ld. AR has placed his reliance upon the following judgments: i. UAE Exchange Centre Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2009) 313 ITR 94; ii. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. (2007) 292 ITR 416 (SC); iii. Mitsui & Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT (International Taxation) (2008) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the company as a whole and, therefore, the Indian office amounts to a PE in India. 8. We have perused the paper book, the arguments advanced by both the parties and the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court relied upon by the ld.AR . 8.1. We observe that the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of UAE Exchange Centre Limited (supra) covers the issue which needs to be considered in the present appeal. We have observed from the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version