9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. 2. Since, the facts and issues arising in these appeals are identical, for the sake of convenience the appeals have been clubbed together and disposed of in a consolidated order. The basic issue arising for consideration in these appeals is whether the assessee had Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms with Article 5(2) of India-France Double Taxation Avoidance Act (DTAA) and whether any part of the business profit can be attributed to the PE. 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity and is a resident of France. As observed by departmental authorities, the assessee is engaged in the business of Train Control and Signaling System (TCS). It is a fact that the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttributable to the PE in India. He further observed that in assessment year 2010-11, learned DRP has held that the assessee had a installation PE in India. Thus, relying upon past history of assessment and other departmental proceedings, the Assessing Officer brought to tax the receipt from off-shore supply of plants and equipments by attributing 1% of the amount received to the PE. Though, the assessee contested the aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer before learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, additions made were confirmed. 5. Before us, Sh. Deepak Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has blindly followed the earlier assessment orders and the directions of learned DRP, though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, the assessee should not be permitted to furnish the additional evidences at this stage. However, he submitted, the bench may in its discretion restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. On a reading of the impugned assessment orders as well as the orders of learned first appellate authority, it is absolutely clear that they have proceeded on the basis of the decision taken by the departmental authorities in past assessment years to conclude that the assessee had a PE in India. However, it is the specific contention of the assessee before us that the decision taken in the past assessment years cannot apply to the impugned assessment y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
