9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the Revenue pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the direction of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2 [ DRP ], New Delhi dated 05.11.2015. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, 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 ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the place of accrual of income arising from the execution of contract. (vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the DRP erred in not considering various terms of the Purchase agreement for supply of equipment given as under; (a) The Terms of Delivery, will be completed by the contractor within 31 months from contract effectiveness 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 e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . All the grounds raised by the Revenue are inter-connected and the only effective ground is against the finding of Ld.DRP that the assessee did not have any fix place PE/service PE/ installation PE in India during the period under consideration. 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee company filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 declaring income of ₹ 1,79,92,710/- which was thereafter, revised on 20.03.2014 declaring total income at ₹ 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Ld.CIT DR supported the grounds of appeal and submitted that Ld.DRP was not justified in holding that the assessee has no PE in India. He submitted that the Assessing Officer correctly narrated the facts and justiciable demonstrated that the assessee had PE in India during the period under consideration. 6. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made before Ld. DRP and also 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 perma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
