9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lution Panel (DRP). 2. Since the issues arising in these appeals are more or less common, for the sake of convenience, the appeals have been clubbed together and disposed of in a consolidated order. Though, multiple issues have been raised in these appeals, however, the major controversy is with regard to existence or otherwise of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Once this controversy gets resolved, other issues may either become academic or redundant. Therefore, at the outset, we proceed to address the issue whether the assessee had PE in India in the assessment years under dispute. 3. The brief facts of the case are, the assessee, hitherto, are non-resident corporate entities. The first named assessee is a tax resident of USA. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment years, held that the assessee had a PE in India and accordingly attributed profit from offshore supply and services to the alleged PE. However, it was the case of the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before learned DRP that the factual position in the assessment years under consideration have substantially changed due to the following reasons: i. AIFACS building had been vacated by GEIOC on 01.05.2012; ii. No expatriate employee was present in India in these assessment years; and iii. The remuneration paid to GEIIPL had increased substantially from cost + 5% to cost + 25%. 3. Be that as it may, the aforesaid contention of the assessee did find favour with the departmental authorities. Thus, in pursuance to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears, the assessee had no PE in India as the AIFACS building considered as the PE of the assessee was vacated by GEIOC on 01.05.2012. It was pleaded by the assessee that in these years, no expatriates have visited in India. As it appears, the departmental authorities have turned a blind eye to all the submissions and facts brought on record by the assessee. Merely following the decision taken by the appellate authorities and Hon'ble High Court in past assessment years, the departmental authorities have concluded the existence of PE without looking into or examining the facts and evidences brought on record, which are very much relevant for deciding the existence of PE in the impugned assessment years. It is observed, while deciding identica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnished annual statement u/s. 285 of the Act in Form 49C for the financial year 2017-18, clearly indicating that since no activity was undertaken by the liaison office, the Management does not intend to continue the liaison office and is to file for closure of the liaison office. Thus, the fact that AIFACS building has been vacated, no expatriates visited India during the year and the liaison office has been closed were brought to the notice of the departmental authorities in course of proceedings to demonstrate that the reasons for which the departmental authorities as well as the Tribunal and Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court held existence of PE, no longer exists in the impugned assessment year. 12. This is clearly evident from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave merely followed their earlier decision without making any effort to look into the specific facts of the impugned assessment year. As discussed earlier, the assessee has brought on record cogent evidence to demonstrate that there is substantial change in facts in impugned assessment year qua the existence of PE. The specific averment of the assessee regarding vacation of office premises at AIFACS building and no visit by expatriates in India during the year, have not been controverted by the departmental authorities by any specific factual finding. In case of Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, while dealing with the issue of reopening of assessment based on informati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee. In such a scenario, we do not find any reason to again remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer to provide him a second inning to improve upon the deficiencies in the original assessment order. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to hold that keeping in view the facts and materials peculiar to the impugned assessment year, it has to be concluded that the assessee did not have any PE, either fixed place PE or dependent agent PE, in India in the year under consideration. We again reiterate, our aforesaid conclusion is purely based on the facts involved in the impugned assessment year." 7. Akin to the case referred to above, in the facts of the present appeals also, the departmental authorities have failed to controve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
