9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the DRP erred in holding that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment in India during the relevant period and therefore business profits from supply of equipments and chemicals are not subject to tax in India. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the DRP erred in not considering that in the return of income, the assessee itself has declared an income of Rs. 1,59,85,718/ chargeable to tax as Business income arising from the Project Office thus itself admitting the existence of a PE in India in the form of Project office. (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the DRP erred in not considering that in Form No 3CEB for the relevant period, India Project Office has been dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness date. (b) Terms of payment : 2% of the contract price after satisfactory completion of integrated cold test for 2nd shutdown. (c) Arbitration - Governing Laws and jurisdiction- jurisdiction arising under the contract shall be rested only in the courts of India and parties submit to the jurisdiction of the said courts in Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. (d) Which clearly establishes the place of accrual of income from supplies of equipments and chemicals to be India. (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the DRP erred in not considering that when the contract was not awarded through any bidding process, a highly technical contract cannot be entered into without prolonged discussions, meetings and technical c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng income of Rs. 1,79,92,710/- which was thereafter, revised on 20.03.2014 declaring total income at Rs. 1,59,85,720/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer issued a draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on 25.03.2015. Thereby, he observed that the equipments needed for project were manufactured by assessee in Japan but were utilized for creation of projects in India. Therefore, a part of profit earned by assessee on offshore sale/supply was directly attributable to Permanent Establishment ("PE") of assessee in India. During the year, the assessee has made supply of Rs. 2,16,50,35,318/-. Accordingly, the assessee's contention that supply of equipment and other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supported the orders of the Ld.DRP. He contended that Ld. DRP has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee as the prescribed threshold period is not satisfied. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that without prejudice to the submissions made herein above, even if it is presumed that the assessee had established a permanent project office but the threshold period for establishment of such office was not satisfied. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that Ld.DRP has given finding on facts in para 7 of the impugned direction by observing as under:- 7.0 Finding: "DRP has duly examined the issue. It is undisputed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
