w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ulo Systems LLC, Noida v/s DCIT (International Taxation)


Company & Directors' Information:- R SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L74899DL1993PLC053579

Company & Directors' Information:- T SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2004PTC127138

Company & Directors' Information:- A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51102GJ2008PTC053840

Company & Directors' Information:- SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U30006TN1989PTC016826

Company & Directors' Information:- NOIDA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2003PTC123554

Company & Directors' Information:- S SYSTEMS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U72200DL2001PTC111270

Company & Directors' Information:- SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC059377

Company & Directors' Information:- T. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL1997PTC091049

Company & Directors' Information:- C SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31103TN2009PTC071155

Company & Directors' Information:- TAXATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2000PTC106716

Company & Directors' Information:- E-SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200WB2003PTC096700

Company & Directors' Information:- I T SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72400AS1999PTC005824

    ITA No. 5279/Del of 2011, ITA No. 4849/Del of 2012, ITA No. 6018/Del of 2013, ITA No. 653/Del of 2015, ITA No. 317/Del of 2016

    Decided On, 29 March 2019

    At, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. BEENA A PILLAI
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. PRASHANT MAHARISHI
    By, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Nageswar Rao, Purushottam Anand, Advocates. For the Respondent: G.K. Dhall, CIT, DR.



Judgment Text


Beena A Pillai, Judicial Member:

1. Present appeals have been filed by assessee against final assessment order dated 10/10/11, 16/07/12, 03/10/13, and others ULO Systems LLC 28/11/14 and 17/11/15 passed under section 143 (3) read with 144C(13) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by Ld.DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-2, Dehra Dun for Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 on following grounds of appeal:

Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, ULO Systems LLC (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant') respectfully craves to prefer an appeal against the assessment order issued by the Asst. Director of Income-tax, (International Taxation), Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as the 'Assessing Officer') under section 143(3) read with section 144C (13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the following grounds:

1. Ground 1 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in contending that ULO has misrepresented during assessment proceedings.

2. Ground 2 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in contending that ULO has adopted completely non-cooperative approach.

3. Ground 3 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact, in holding that the appellant has a fixed place of business in India, which constitutes its P.E. in India.

4. Ground 4 4.1. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact, in holding that the offshore supplies made by assessee outside India are chargeable to tax in India.

4.2. Without prejudice to above, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact, in making arbitrary estimate of taxable income at 10 per cent of offshore supplies and others ULO Systems LLC 4.3. Without prejudice to above, the arbitrary estimate of taxable income at 10 per cent of gross revenues made by the Ld.AO is unreasonable, excessive and ought to be reduced substantially.

5. Ground 5 5.1. Without prejudice to above, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact, in making arbitrary estimate of taxable income at 10 per cent in case of services rendered in India.

5.2. Without prejudice to above, the arbitrary estimate of taxable income at 10 per cent of gross revenues made by the Ld.AO is unreasonable, excessive and ought to be reduced substantially. 5.3. Without prejudice to above ground, the learned Assessing Officer erred in not taxing income from services rendered in India as per provisions of section 44BB of the Act.

5.4. Without prejudice to above ground, the learned Assessing Officer erred in taxing income of the appellant as fees for technical services (FTS).

6. Ground 6 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and in levying interest u/s 234B of the Act disregarding the fact that appellant is a non-resident and interest u/s 234B of the Act is not leviable to a non-resident assessee.

7. Ground 7 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and section 271B of the Act. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Honorable Members to decide this appeal according to law.

Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, ULO Systems LLC (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant') respectfully craves to prefer an appeal against the assessment order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (International Taxation), Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as the 'Assessing Officer') under section and others ULO Systems LLC 143(3) read with section 144C (13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the following grounds:

1. Ground 1 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact, in holding that the Appellant has a fixed place of business in India, which constitutes its Permanent Establishment ('PE') in India.

2. Ground 2

2.1. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact, in holding that the offshore supplies made by assessee outside India are chargeable to tax in India.

2.2. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact, in holding that the credit notes issued by the appellant are not eligible for deduction while computing the income of the appellant.

2.3. Without prejudice to the above, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact, in making arbitrary estimate of taxable income at 10 percent of offshore supplies.

2.4. Without Prejudice to the above, the arbitrary estimate of taxable income at 10 percent of offshore supplies made by the learned Assessing Officer is unreasonable, excessive and ought to be reduced substantially.

3. Ground

3.1. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact, in making arbitrary estimate of taxable income at 10 percent in respect of services rendered in India.

3.2. Without Prejudice to the above, the arbitrary estimate of taxable income at 10 percent in respect of services rendered in India made by the learned Assessing Officer is unreasonable, excessive and ought to be reduced substantially.

3.3. Without prejudice to the above ground, the learned Assessing Officer erred in not taxing income from services rendered in India as per the provisions of section 44BB of the Act.

4. Ground 4 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in levying interest u/s 234B of the Act ITA Nos. 5279/Del/11 and others ULO Systems LLC disregarding the fact that appellant is a non-resident and interest u/s 234B of the Act is not leviable to a non-resident assessee

5. Ground 5 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) and 271B of the Act.

Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Honorable Members to decide this appeal according to law.

Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, ULO Systems LLC (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant') respectfully craves to prefer an appeal against the assessment order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (International Taxation), Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as the 'Assessing Officer') under section 143(3) read with section 144C (13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the following grounds:

1. Ground 1 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact, in holding that the Appellant has a fixed place of business in India, which constitutes its Permanent Establishment ('PE') in India.

2. Ground 2 2.1. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact, in holding that the offshore supplies made by assessee outside India are chargeable to tax in India.

2.2. Without prejudice to the above, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact, in making arbitrary estimate of taxable income at 10 percent of offshore supplies.

2.3. Without Prejudice to the above, the arbitrary estimate of taxable income at 10 percent of offshore supplies made by the learned Assessing Officer is unreasonable, excessive and ought to be reduced substantially and others ULO Systems LLC

3. Ground 3 3.1. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact, in making arbitrary estimate of taxable income at 10 percent in respect of services rendered in India.

3.2. Without Prejudice to the above, the arbitrary estimate of taxable income at 10 percent in respect of services rendered in India made by the learned Assessing Officer is unreasonable, excessive and ought to be reduced substantially.

3.3. Without prejudice to the above ground, the learned Assessing Officer erred in not taxing income from services rendered in India as per the provisions of section 44BB of the Act.

4. Ground 4 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in taxing interest income from income-tax refund of Rs.146,570.

5. Ground 5 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act for concealing the particulars of income by not disclosing the true receipts from supplies and by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

6. Ground 6 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Act Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Honorable Members to decide this appeal according to law.

ITA 653/Del/15 AY: 2011-12 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, ULO Systems LLC (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant') respectfully craves to prefer an appeal against the assessment order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (International Taxation), Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as the 'Assessing Officer') under section ITA Nos. 5279/Del/11 and others ULO Systems LLC 143(3) read with section 144C (13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the following grounds:

1. Ground 1 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact, in holding that the Appellant has a fixed place of business in India, which constitutes its Permanent Establishment ('PE') in India.

2. Ground 2 a. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact, in holding that the offshore supplies made by assessee outside India are chargeable to tax in India.

b. Without prejudice to the above, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact, in making arbitrary estimate of taxable income at 10 percent of offshore supplies.

c. Without Prejudice to the above, the arbitrary estimate of taxable income at 10 percent of offshore supplies made by the learned Assessing Officer is unreasonable, excessive and ought to be reduced substantially.

3. Ground 3 a. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact, in making arbitrary estimate of taxable income at 10 percent in respect of services rendered in India.

b. Without Prejudice to the above, the arbitrary estimate of taxable income at 10 percent in respect of services rendered in India made by the learned Assessing Officer is unreasonable, excessive and ought to be reduced substantially. c. Without prejudice to the above ground, the learned Assessing Officer erred in not taxing income from services rendered in India as per the provisions of section 44BB of the Act.

4. Ground 4 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act for concealing the particulars of income by not disclosing the true receipts from supplies and by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and others ULO Systems LLC

5. Ground 5 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Act.

Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Honorable Members to decide this appeal according to law.

ITA 317/Del/16 AY: 2012-13 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, ULO Systems LLC (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant') respectfully craves to prefer an appeal against the assessment order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (International Taxation), Circle II, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as the 'Assessing Officer') under section 143(3) read with section 144C (13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the following grounds:

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.AO, as per the directions of DRP has:

1. Ground 1: General ground erred in assessing total income at Rs.11,661,366 as against the returned income of Rs.3,604,019.

2. Ground 2 : Permanent Establishment (' PE' ) erred in holding that the Appellant has a fixed place of business in India, which constitutes its PE in India under Article 5 of the India- UAE treaty.

3. Ground 3: Taxability of offshore supply of material 3.1. erred in holding that the offshore supplies made by the Appellant outside India are chargeable to tax in India. 3.2. Without prejudice to the above, erred in making arbitrary estimate of taxable income at 10 percent of revenues from offshore supplies.

3.3. Without prejudice to the above, arbitrary estimate of taxable income at 10 percent of revenues from offshore supplies made by the ITA Nos. 5279/Del/11 and others ULO Systems LLC ld.AO is unreasonable, excessive and ought to be reduced substantially.

4. Ground 4: Taxability of grouting services 4.1. erred in making arbitrary estimate of taxable income at 10 percent in respect of grouting services rendered in India. 4.2. erred in making arbitrary estimate of taxable income at 10 percent in respect of grouting services rendered in India made by the Ld.AO is unreasonable, excessive and ought to be reduced substantially.

4.3. Without prejudice to the above, erred in not taxing income from grouting services rendered in India as per the provisions of section 44BB of the Act.

5. Ground 5: Taxability of interest on income-tax refund 5.1. erred in taxing interest on income-tax refund of Rs.89,557 for AY 2010-11 as business income.

5.2. Without prejudice to the above, even if it is held that the appellant constitutes a PE in India under Article 5 of the India-UAE tax treaty, such interest on income tax refund is not effectively connected to the PE.

6. Ground 6: Short grant of credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS): erred in granting TDS credit of Rs.3,054,742 only as against TDS credit of Rs.4,485,601 as claimed in the return of income.

7. Ground 7: Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act erred in levying interest u/s 234B of the Act disregarding the fact that appellant is a non-resident and interest u/s 234B of the Act is not leviable to a non-resident assessee.

8. Ground 8: erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act without appreciating that the appellant has neither concealed nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of income.

9. Ground 9: initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the Act erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 B of the Act without appreciating that the appellant is not required to maintain books of accounts in India/get the accounts audited. The above grounds is without prejudice to one another and others ULO Systems LLC The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Honorable Members to decide this appeal according to law."

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

Assessee is a company incorporated in UAE and is engaged in business of undertaking grouting work for companies in the oil and gas industry. It has been submitted that assessee is carrying on grouting services in which a layer of cement is laid on underwater structure. Assessee has also made some supplies from outside India to Indian companies, the income arising from these activities, has been claimed by assessee as non-taxable in India. Ld.Counsel submitted that similar activities are carried on by assessee for all assessment years under consideration. The position has been admitted by Ld. CIT DR.

2.1. For assessment years under consideration assessee filed its return of income declaring 'nil' income. The return was then selected for scrutiny. Ld.AO observed that for years under consideration assessee undertook contracts with Dolphin Offshore Enterprises India Ltd, Valentine Maritime Mauritius, Global Industries Offshore, BG Exploration and Production India Ltd, GIL Mauritius Holding and Clough Oil and Gas. No income from these contracts has been offered to tax in India, on the ground of absence of Permanent Establishment (P.E.) of assessee in India. Ld.AO treated income from grouting to be taxable services arisen out of a Fixed Place PE under Article 5(1) of India-UAE DTAA and income from offshore supplies as business profits taxable in India, ITA Nos. 5279/Del/11 and others ULO Systems LLC attributable to PE and attribute profit on gross receipts from two activities @ 25%.

2.2. Aggrieved by order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred objections before DRP in respect of all assessment years under consideration. DRP based upon its observation for assessment year 2007-08 upheld stand taken by Ld.AO in respect of services from grouting and holding that income from these activities are taxable due to existence of PE in India under Article 5(1) of India UAE DTAA. The panel also took note of continuous nature of activities undertaken by assessee and confirmed view taken by Ld. AO that assessee had a PE in India. As regards rate of attribution at which gross receipts of assessee were to be brought to tax in India, panel disagreed that these can be taxed at 25%. However panel directed Ld.AO to attribute gross receipts of assessee @ 10% as profit of PE. 2.3. Ld.AO on receipt of directions from DRP passed final assessment order making additions as proposed in consonance to the same.

3. Aggrieved by final order of Ld. AO, assessee is in appeal before us in respect of all assessment years under consideration. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and therefore do not require any adjudication.

Ground No. 2-3 has been raised against the view of Ld. AO regarding existence of PE in India 3.1. At the outset Ld.Counsel placed reliance upon order dated 21/12/2018 of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08 in ITA No. 5968/Del/2010. He submitted that Ld. AO ITA Nos. 5279/Del/11 and others ULO Systems LLC as well as DRP followed assessment year 2007-08 which attained finality. It has been further submitted that issue stands squarely covered by this order. Ld.Counsel submitted that all contentions raised by Ld. CIT DR in written submissions are identical and have been considered by this Tribunal in that order. 3.2. Ld.Counsel submits that assessee do not have fixed place of PE in India available for its disposal for carrying on business in India and does not constitute a PE under Article 5 (1) of India UAE DTAA. He also submitted that, assessee do not have office/project office in India for executing contracts and accordingly does not have a PE in India as per provisions of Article 5 (2) (a) to (g) of India UAE DTAA.

3.3. By placing reliance on observation by this Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2007-08, Ld.Counsel submitted that activities of assessee falls under 'Construction' in Article 5 (2) (h) of the treaty, and therefore each construction or assembly project should continue for a period of more than 9 months in India in order to constitute a Construction PE. He submitted that, as activities carried on by assessee in contracts involve installation/construction activities, and since none of the projects have continued for more than 9 months as per Article 5 (2) (h) of treaty, assessee cannot be said to have a construction PE in India. 3.4. He submitted that all projects executed by assessee during each assessment year under consideration are unconnected with each other, and has been entered into with different parties, which are not related or connected in any manner. It has also been ITA Nos. 5279/Del/11 and others ULO Systems LLC submitted that contracts are not arranged in any particular order or sequence and are not planned to happen one after other. It has been submitted that it is upon these facts, which are similar with that of assessment year 2007-08, this Tribunal in assessee's own case deleted addition by holding that assessee do not have a PE under Article 5(1) & (2) in India, and therefore income derived by assessee from activities in India is not taxable by virtue of Article 7 of India UAE DTAA.

3.5. Ld.Counsel thus submits that work carried out by assessee in India falls under Article 5 (2) (h) of the treaty, and therefore to constitute a construction PE, duration test as specified therein must be satisfied. Placing reliance upon decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08 (supra), Ld.Counsel submitted that assessee do not satisfy duration test, and therefore no PE in India could be constituted. He also submitted that this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08 in para 12 of the order has held that there is no place for concept of Equipment PE in India, as per India UAE DTAA. He submitted that this Tribunal categorised complex activities carried on by assessee as 'construction' thereby applying Article 5 (2) (h) of the treaty.

4. On the contrary, Ld.CIT DR submitted that, grouting activity carried on by assessee do not fall into definition of 'construction' under Article 5 (2) (h) of the treaty. He submitted that equipment used by assessee constitutes its 'place of business', and therefore there is existence of 'Equipment PE' of assessee in India. He ITA Nos. 5279/Del/11 and others ULO Systems LLC submitted that assessee therefore qualifies for PE in terms of article 5 (1) of the treaty.

4.1. Ld.CIT DR further submitted that, projects undertaken by assessee during years under consideration, were ongoing project and they were in continuance. Referring to page 58 and 73 of paper book, Ld.CIT DR submitted that, vessels are provided by contractors and equipments along with personnel are provided by assessee. He submitted that there is no evidence to support handover of contract when work is being completed. It has been submitted that whenever there is a demobilisation of equipment one phase of project ends, and personnel along with equipment are demobilised to another site. He submitted that action of grouting took place in phases and no books of accounts are maintained by assessee. He thus submitted that continuance of project in such phased manner constitutes PE in terms of Article 5 (2) of India UAE DTAA, and therefore amounts to PE in terms of Article 5 (1) of DTAA.

4.2. Ld. CIT DR raised following issues in respect of contracts placed in paper book:

"4. No evidence to support or determine the handover of the contract. Whenever there is demobilization of equipment, one phase of the project ends and the personnel/equipment are demobilized. Last demobilization of equipment could be considered as handover of the contract. [p.84]Grouting operation is carried out in phases, [p.85]

5. No books of accounts maintained, [p.85]

6. Details of Daily Report submitted only in respect of BG [p.124-127 & 131-134] &Dolphin.

7. Two agreements with the same party i.e. Dolphin for the same project on 1st March & 30th March 2005 (p. 172-173, same as 2009- 10 p.2&3). Contract Price not specified. As per the contract, ULO shall execute the works. It can't be treated as a contract for the supply of equipment and manpower. ULO will insure the personnel &equipments. The obligations of Dolphin do not include supply of material for the project. Moreover, additional material used shall be charged @cost plus 18% (p.187) clearly provides that provision of material is a part of the contract.

8. Contract with Global for the period 2005-06 to 2007-08 [p.193- 194]. Supply provisions part of the contract [p.203]. Title of products shall pass only when contracts paid the invoice value & risk shall pass on delivery at delivery point.[p.208]

9. Work Order from BG Exploration. Includes Material. Lump sum price USD 16000. Plant & personnel to be mobilized from Arya Offshore Platform.[p.219]

10. Contract with GIL Mauritius Holding. Mobilization Contract [p.225] & p.230 hire of equipment contract [p.230], Only cover pages. For all such contracts with only cover pages, the body remains the same as for global.

11. Contract with Clough[p.233]."

4.3. He submitted that assessee failed to provide details called for by Ld.AO in providing basis of computation of number of days of each project, their project duration, copies of invoices of each Project etc. In the absence of these details, assessee has even otherwise not established that for how many days activities continued in Indian territories.

5. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us.

5.1. Assessee is a tax resident of UAE, and is eligible to avail benefits if any, under the India UAE DTAA for financial year relevant to assessment years under consideration. Admittedly, assessee entered into contracts with following parties during preceding assessment year and assessment years under consideration, the details tabulated by Ld.DR are as under.

5.2. Revenue is derived by assessee in relation to activities carried out under various contracts executed by assessee with parties in ITA Nos. 5279/Del/11 and others ULO Systems LLC India, is in the nature of business profits, and amounts received thereunder would have to be examined under Article 7 of India UAE DTAA. Article 7 of the treaty provides that business profits earned by a resident of UAE shall be taxable in India, only if, such resident carries on business in India through a PE, as defined under Article 5 of the treaty, situated in India.

5.3. The issue that arises in all these appeals filed by assessee is, whether there is a PE in India from grouting activities carried on by assessee and alternatively, applicability of section 44 BB of the Act, to the income earned by assessee from grouting activities. Assessee has also earned receipts in connection with offshore supplies made to Indian customers and attribution of such income provided existence of PE is established.

5.4. On perusal of order passed by this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08 (supra), it is observed that existence of equipment PE alleged by Revenue has been rejected by observing as under:

"12. The DRP was of the opinion that the equipment of the assessee was in India for at least 264 days on which work for execution of construction was carried on. Thus, the assessee has equipment PE in India. This finding of the DRP finds no place in India UAE DTAA and the concept 'Equipment PE" in India is no where mentioned. The DRP further observed that even movables placed of business may constitute a PE even if they are temporary in location but permanent in time. A place of business would constitute a PE even if it exists only for a very short period, if time and nature of business is such ITA Nos. 5279/Del/11 and others ULO Systems LLC that it is carried on for that period of time. The DRP is of the opinion that the assessee should be allowed benefit of limitation clause only when such activities are vocational but when such activities are carried on from year to year regularly and periodically, then it does raise presumption that it is being done deliberately to avoid establishment of PE in India.

13. In our considered opinion, it is a settled principle of interpretation in view of Vienna Convention of 1969, that DTAA needs to be interpreted " uberrimae fidie" which means 'with utmost good faith'. It means that the assessing officer/DRP are rewriting DTAA. The contention of the learned DR that the assessee deliberately manipulated length of projects to always keep it under 270 days is an ill-placed allegation only.

14. In our current understanding of the facts, the observation by the assessing officer/the DRP that grouting is not a simple masonry work and involves complex aspect does not take it out of the construction activities as mentioned in article 5 (2) (h) of the India UAE DTAA because there is no bifurcations of simple and complex missionaries/construction work under article 5 (2) (h) and any further classification (as done by the revenue) would amount to rewriting DTAA.

17. There are a few other DTAA's, namely, Australia, Thailand, Canada, USA, Denmark etc where relevant PE clauses are so worded that there is a specific mention for application of aggregation principle on all, or even connected, sites, project or activities for computation of threshold duration test. Thus whereas, India UAE DTAA uses ITA Nos. 5279/Del/11 and others ULO Systems LLC Cingular expressions 'building, site or construction or assembly project' and, therefore, in our understanding, aggregation of different projects is not allowed by conscious legislative scheme.

18. Before us, the Ld. DR referred to records of several assessment years and on that basis, alleged that in the absence of reliable and authentic details regarding number of days spent in India article 5 (1) will apply instead of article 5 (2) (h). We would like to mention here that the DRP has concluded that 264 days were spent in India during assessment year 2007-08. In our considered opinion, the Ld. DR, at this stage, cannot improve the findings of the DRP.

19. Another objection of the Ld. DR was that the assessee indulged in ongoing projects and, therefore, it cannot be said that the state is less than 9 months. We are of the opinion that the establishment of PE in India is in respect of each assessment year only. Moreover there is no bar in carrying on the activities year after year. The determination of existence of PE in India is to be made by reference to provision in DTAA. In our considered opinion the Ld. DR was trying to set up a new case which is not permissible by the decision of the special bench of the tribunal in case of Mahindra and Mahindra vs DCIT (2009) 313 ITR (80) 263. The Ld. DR also contended that the matter should be sent back to the assessing officer for the determination of the period of stay in India.

20. In our considered opinion, multiple opportunities are not permissible to any authority to experiment in setting up case as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Babubhai the Damania 251 ITR 541. Considering the facts of the case in totality, in ITA Nos. 5279/Del/11 and others ULO Systems LLC the light of India UAE DTAA, we are of the considered opinion that there is no PE in India for the year under consideration. First grievances accordingly, allowed."

5.5. At this stage it is necessary to analyse scope of work carried out by assessee within Indian territories under contract with all contractors entered into by assessee for years under consideration. We refer to agreement placed at page 171-188 of paper book. In the agreement, work performed by assessee has been more particularly explained in schedule at page 185 as under:

"work to be performed under this agreement.

In connection with the project the utilisation of specialised grouting equipment and bulk cement storage vessels to store a part of the required materials and including the specialised personnel to operate the equipment to perform the prescribed requirement of mixing and pumping cementitious grout. To include for all the testing of the grout materials and reporting on tested materials" 5.6. On perusal of submissions made by assessee before DRP placed on record, it is observed that contract of grouting with other parties involve similar/identical activities carried on by assessee, within territories of India. None of these activities in our opinion seemingly indicate to be construction activity. 5.7. Further, as per contracts entered into by assessee with various parties, assessee is to ensure personnel and equipments. It has been submitted that equipments and personnel come to India as and when they required by main contractor. Assessee performs work and goes back till, the next requirement of Main Contractor.

The equipment and personnel are therefore demobilised and placed off site, once the work gets over.

5.8. Article 7 of India UAE DTAA provides that business profits earned by a resident of UAE shall be taxable in India only if such resident carries on business in India through a permanent establishment as defined under Article 5 of the treaty situated in India.

5.9. From these arguments advanced by Ld.Counsel, he admits before us that there is Construction PE of assessee in India.

6. We shall analyse Article 5 (2) (h) of the treaty, to the specific activity carried out by assessee, in case of assessee for Assessment Years under consideration in light of observations made by Coordinate bench of this Tribunal for assessment year 2007-08 (supra).

"Article- 5(2)(h) (2) The term "permanent establishment" includes especially:

(h) a building site or construction or assembly project or supervisory activities in connection therewith, but only where such site, project or activity continues for a period of more than 9 months ;" Article 5(2) uses the word 'include', which means, only the places specified therein are to be treated as PE, the list of such PEs is not exhaustive.

According to Klaus Vogel in his book on Double Taxation Conventions, A Commentary to OECD-UN and US Model Convention for Avoidance of Double Taxation on Income and Capital, at page 306 in para 73 (b) defines "building site or construction or installation project" as;

"Building site or construction project includes the construction of buildings, Sewer systems, bridges or canals, excavating and dredging and laying of pipelines."

6.1. Thus, activity carried on by assessee does not fall under category of Construction project, as sub-sea activities that can be treated as 'Construction" are "laying of pipe-lines and excavating and dredging"

Taking into consideration specific activity of grouting carried out by assessee for, Main Contractors in Indian territories, being pipelines and cable crossing, pipeline and cable stabilisation, Pipeline cable protection, stabilisation and protection of various subsea structures, Anti-scour protection etc., cannot be held to be 'Construction', under sub clause (h) of clause (2) of Article 5 of India UAE treaty. Assessee has not been able to establish before authorities below and before us, how the activities carried out by it, amounts to construction or assembly project to fall under Article 5 (2) (h) of the treaty for years under consideration. 6.2. Further, in order to bring any other establishment which is not specifically mentioned in Article 5(2), requirements laid down in Article 5(1) are to be satisfied. The two conditions that need to be satisfied are:

(a) existence of a fixed place of business; and

(b) through that place business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried out.

For this, it is necessary to understand whether assessee has a place of business in India available at its disposal for carrying on its business.

OECD model Convention 2010 refers to the term 'place of business' as under:

"The OECD model Convention 2010 clarifies that, for the purpose of existence of a fixed place P, the term 'place of business' covers any premises, facilities or installations used for carrying on the business of the enterprise. Thus, the place of business, generally should be intangible form (such as an office, a factory, and equipment, etc)" OECD model Convention 2010, as well as UN model Convention 2011, defines key features for determining 'place of business' as under:

may include premises, facilities, installations, equipment, etc; may be owned, rented or otherwise at the Enterprises disposal; need not be for Enterprises exclusive use; and generally, human element is not relevant. In other words, such a place of business may comprise of an equipment (for instance, a computer server) and need not be manned with the Enterprises personnel.

6.3. In the book, Klaus Vogel on Double Taxation Conventions A Commentary to OECD-UN-and US model Convention for Avoidance of Double Taxation on Income and Capital defines at page 285, a 'place of business' has been held as under:

"A place, though normally a particular portion of space, must be read in the light of its being used to define 'establishment'. A 'place of ITA Nos. 5279/Del/11 and others ULO Systems LLC business', therefore means all the tangible assets used for carrying on the business"

6.4. Before us, Ld.Counsel did not argue, on as to whether equipments 'through' which, assessee carried out its business activity, constituted fixed place PE under Article 5 (1) of India UAE treaty for assessment years under consideration. Instead, he placed reliance upon observations of this Tribunal for assessment year 2007-08 in assessee's own case regarding applicability of Article 5 (2) (h) of treaty, and that activities carried out by assessee amounts to 'construction' and since duration test of each contract is not satisfied, as per requirement under sub clause (h) of clause 2 of Article 5, no PE could be made out.

6.5. On the basis of discussion hereinabove we have already rejected submission of Ld.Counsel. There is no dispute that, assessee's equipments as well as Personnel, were stationed on the vessel of Main Contractor, for carrying out grouting. It is also an admitted fact that equipment is the main place of business to assessee. Further, on analysis of the Clause 7.4 of agreement between assessee and Dolphin, relevant to assessment year 2008- 09, provides free of charge, food and accommodation to the personnel on-board of offshore vessel.

6.6. It cannot be denied that the 'vessel', on which equipments were placed and personnel was stationed, as fixed place of business through which business is carried on by assesse. Thus in our view ingredients required under Article 5(1) of DTAA stands satisfied.

6.7. For every assessment year under consideration assessee, has a fair amount of permanence through its personnel and its equipments, within territorial limits of India, to perform its business activity for Contractors with whom it has entered into agreements. 6.8. Having regard to OECD commentary and Klaus Vogel's commentary on general principles applicable that as long as presence is in a physically defined geographical area, permanence in such fixed place could be relative having regard to the nature of business, it is hereby held that the equipment along with the personnel on vessel of the contractor itself constitutes a fixed place of assessee's business in India. We draw our support from decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Formula One world Championship Ltd vs CIT (international taxation)-3, Delhi reported in (2017) 18 Taxmann.com 347.

6.9. On perusal of draft assessment order, as well as DRP order, we have observed certain discrepancies. For instance for assessment year 2009-10 Ld.AO held that assessee has a PE in India in the form of equipment. However DRP proceeded by observing that Ld.AO treated income from grouting services as fees for technical services. In our opinion, findings of DRP to this extent is incorrect, as Ld.AO has never treated income earned by assessee from contracto's to be FTS.

6.10. Assessee placed heavy reliance on the order passed by Coordinate bench in its own case for assessment year 2007-08. We very carefully perused the same to follow the view taken therein, however we fail to do so in view of the fact that existence of a fixed ITA Nos. 5279/Del/11 and others ULO Systems LLC place PE has been decided in that case holding that 'equipment' cannot be held as fixed place of business. This observation of the Coordinate bench in assessee's own case is not in accordance with decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Formula One World Championship Ltd vs CIT (International Taxation)-3, Delhi (supra) wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "25. Some of the examples of fixed place of business given by Baker are the following: The place of business must be fixed and permanent. Thus, a shed which had been rented for thirteen years for storing and preparing hides was held to constitute a PE [Transvaal Associated Hide & Skin Merchants (Pty.) Ltd. v. Collector Tax Botswana [1967] 29 SATC 97]. Similarly, a writer's study has been held to constitute a PE [Georges Simenon v. Commissioner of Interval Revenue [1965] 44 TC (US) 20]. A stand at a trade fair, occupied regularly for three weeks a year, through which the enterprise obtained contracts for a significant part of its annual sales, has also been held to constitute a PE [Josepn Fowler v. M.N.R [1990] 90 DTC 1834]. A temporary restaurant operated in a mirror tent at a Dutch flower show for a period of seven months was held to constitute a PE1. An office, workshop and storeroom for the maintenance of aircraft, which were leased out by the enterprise, has been held to constitute a PE2.

26. On the other hand, possession of a mailing address in a state - without an office, telephone listing or bank account - has been held not to constitute a PE [Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Consolidated Premium Iron Ores [1959] 265 F 2d 320]. The mere supply of skilled labour to work in a country did not give rise to a PE of the company supplying the labour [Tekniskil (Sendirian) Berhal v. CIT [1996] 88 Taxman 439/222 ITR 551 (AAR - Delhi)]. A drilling rig which, although anchored while in operation, was moved to a new site every few months, has been held not to constitute a PE3. Similarly, a remotely operated vessel which was used to inspect and repair submarine pipelines was held not to constitute a PE because a moving vessel is not a fixed place of business [Dy. CIT v. Subsea Offshore Ltd. [1998] 66 ITD 296 (Mum.)].

7. The principal test, in order to ascertain as to whether an establishment has a fixed place of business or not, is that such physically located premises have to be 'at the disposal' of the enterprise. For this purpose, it is not necessary that the premises are owned or even rented by the enterprise. It will be sufficient if the premises are put at the disposal of the enterprise. However, merely giving access to such a place to the enterprise for the purposes of the project would not suffice. The place would be treated as 'at the disposal' of the enterprise when the enterprise has right to use the said place and has control thereupon.

28. Some of the illustrative cases decided by courts of different jurisdictions given by Baker in his commentary are contained in the following passages from that book:

(i) In the Canadian case of William Dudney v. R [1999] 99 DTC 147, the taxpayer was a resident of the United States who was contracted to supply training to employees of a Canadian company. For the purposes of the training contract, the taxpayer was given various offices at the premises of the Canadian company, which he was only allowed to enter at normal office hours. He was allowed to use the client's telephone only on client's business. He spent 300 days in one tax year and 40 in the subsequent year at the premises. The Tax Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that he had no fixed base - which was treated as having the same meaning as PE - at the premises since he had no right to use the premises as the base for the operation of his own business.

(ii). In a case generally referred to as Hotel Manager4, the Bundesfinanzhof held that a UK hotel management company had a PE in Germany when it entered into a 20 year contract with a limited partnership which owned a hotel. The agreement required the UK company to supply a general manager: the general manager's office constituted the PE (and not the entire hotel) since the UK company had a secured right to use this office for the purposes of the agreement.

(iii) A Swiss company was held not to have a PE when it ITA Nos. 5279/Del/11 and others ULO Systems LLC contracted with a German company to produce salad dressings in the name of and in accordance with the recipe of the Swiss company. No employees of the Swiss company were present at the production facility to supervise production5. The Bundestinanzhof has also held that a scene painter who was commissioned to carry out a work in France for six weeks, and given special rooms for the purpose, did not have a fixed base at those premises.

(iv) The Administrative Court of Appeal of Paris has held that a German travel agency did not have a PE in France6. A travel agency in Paris had made an office available to the German company from time to time, and the manager of the German company had a flat in Paris; the Court held that the German company had no PE at its disposal in France.

(v). The Brussels Court of Appeal has held that a German resident engaged in the transportation of vehicles had a PE in Belgium7. The taxpayer had an office 3m by 6m at his disposal on the premises of his principal supplier in Belgium, together with telephone and telex, where the taxpayer and four of his staff worked.

29. According to Philip Baker, the aforesaid illustrations confirm that the fixed place of business need not be owned or leased by the foreign enterprise, provided that is at the disposal of the enterprise in the sense of having some right to use the premises for the purposes of its business and not solely for the purposes of the project undertaken on behalf of the owner of the premises.

30. Interpreting the OECD Article 5 pertaining to PE, Klaus Vogel has remarked that insofar as the term 'business' is concerned, it is broad, vague and of little relevance for the PE definition. According to him, the crucial element is the term 'place'. Importance of the term 'place' is explained by him in the following manner:

"In conjunction with the attribute 'fixed', the requirement of a place reflects the strong link between the land and the taxing powers of the State. This territorial link serves as the basis not only for the distributive rules which are tied to the existence of PE but also for a considerable number of other distributive rules and, above all, ITA Nos. 5279/Del/11 and others ULO Systems LLC for the assignment of a person to either Contracting State on the basis of residence (Article 1, read in conjunction with Article 4 OECD and UN MC)."

31. We would also like to extract below the definition to the expression 'place' by Vogel, which is as under: "A place is a certain amount of space within the soil or on the soil. This understanding of place as a three-dimensional zone rather than a single point on the earth can be derived from the French Version ('installation fixe') as well as the term 'establishment'. As a rule, this zone is based on a certain area in, on, or above the surface of the earth. Rooms or technical equipment above the soil may quality as a PE only if they are fixed on the soil. This requirement, however, stems from the term 'fixed' rather than the term 'place', given that a place (or space) does not necessarily consist of a piece of land. On the contrary, the term 'establishment' makes clear that it is not the soil as such which is the PE but that the PE is constituted by a tangible facility as distinct from the soil. This is particularly evident from the French version of Article 5(1) OECD MC which uses the term 'installation' instead of 'place'.

The term 'place' is used to define the term 'establishment'. Therefore, 'place' includes all tangible assets used for carrying on the business, but one such tangible asset can be sufficient. The characterization of such assets under private law as real property rather than personal property (in common law countries) or immovable rather than movable property (in civil law countries) is not authoritative. It is rather the context (including, above all, the terms 'fixed'/'fixe'), as well as the object and purpose of Article 5 OECD and UN MC itself, in the light of which the term 'place' needs to be interpreted. This approach, which follows from the general rules on treaty interpretation, gives a certain leeway for including movable property in the understanding of 'place' and, therefore, the assume a PE once such property has been 'fixed' to the soil.

For example, a work bench in a caravan, restaurants on permanently anchored river boats, steady oil rigs, or a ITA Nos. 5279/Del/11 and others ULO Systems LLC transformator or generator on board a former railway wagon qualify as places (and may also be 'fixed').

In contrast, purely intangible property cannot qualify in any case. In particular, rights such a participations in a corporation, claims, bundles of claims (like bank accounts), any other type of intangible property (patents, software, trademarks etc.) or intangible economic assets (a regular clientele or the goodwill of an enterprise) do not in themselves constitute a PE. They can only form part of PE constituted otherwise. Likewise, an internet website (being a combination of software and other electronic data) does not constitute tangible property and, therefore, does not constitute a PE.

Neither does the mere incorporation of a company in a Contracting State in itself constitute a PE of the company in that State. Where a company has its seat, according to its by-laws and/or registration, in State A while the POEM is situated in State B, this company will usually be liable to tax on the basis of its worldwide income in both Contracting States under their respective domestic tax law. Under the A-B treaty, however, the company will be regarded as a resident of State B only (Article 4(3) OECD and UN MC). In the absence of both actual facilities and a dependent agent in State A, income of this company will be taxable only in State B under the 1st sentence of Article 7(1) OECD and UN MC. There is no minimum size of the piece of land. Where the qualifying business activities consist (in full or in part) of human activities by the taxpayer, his employees or representatives, the mere space needed for the physical presence of these individuals is not sufficient (if it were sufficient, Article 5(5) OECD MC and Article 5(5)(a) UN MC and the notion of agent PEs were superfluous). This can be illustrated by the example of a salesman who regularly visits a major customer to take orders, and conducts meetings in the purchasing director's office. The OECD MC Comm. has convincingly denied the existence of a PE, based on the implicit understanding that the relevant geographical unit is not just the chair where the salesman sits, but the entire office of the customer, and the office is not at the disposal of the enterprise for which the salesman is working."

32. Taking cue from the word 'through' in the Article, Vogel has also emphasised that the place of business qualifies only if the place is 'at the disposal' of the enterprise. According to him, the enterprise will not be able to use the place of business as an instrument for carrying on its business unless it controls the place of business to a considerable extent. He hastens to add that there are no absolute standards for the modalities and intensity of control. Rather, the standards depend on the type of business activity at issue. According to him, 'disposal' is the power (or a certain fraction thereof) to use the place of business directly. Some of the instances given by Vogel in this behalf, of relative standards of control, are as under: "The degree of control depends on the type of business activity that the taxpayer carries on. It is therefore not necessary that the taxpayer is able to exclude others from entering or using the POB. The painter example in the OECD MC Comm. (no. 4.5 OECD MC Comm. on Article 5) (however questionable it might be with regard to the functional integration test) suggests that the type and extent of control need not exceed the level of what is required for the specific type of activity which is determined by the concrete business.

By contrast, in the case of a self-employed engineer who had free access to his customer's premises to perform the services required by his contract, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the engineer had no control because he had access only during the customer's regular office hours and was not entitled to carry on businesses of his own on the premises.

Similarly, a Special Bench of Delhi's Income Tax Appellate Tribunal denied the existence of a PE in the case of Ericsson. The Tribunal held that it was not sufficient that Ericsson's employees had access to the premises of Indian mobile phone providers to deliver the hardware, software and know-how required for operating a network. By contrast, in the case of a competing enterprise, the Bench did assume an Indian PE because the employees of that enterprise (unlike Ericsson's) had exercised other businesses of their employer.

The OECD view can hardly be reconciled with the two court cases. All three examples do indeed shed some light onto the method how the relative standards for the control threshold should be designed. While the OECD MC Comm. suggests that it is sufficient to require not more than the type and extent of control necessary for the specific business activity which the taxpayer wants to exercise in the source State, the Canadian and Indian decisions advocate for stricter standards for the control threshold. The OECD MC shows a paramount tendency (though no strict rule) that PEs should be treated like subsidiaries (cf. Article 24(3) OECD and UN MC), and that facilities of a subsidiary would rarely been unusable outside the office hours of one of its customers (i.e. a third person), the view of the two courts is still more convincing.

Along these lines, a POB will usually exist only where the taxpayer is free to use the POB:

- at any time of his own choice;

- for work relating to more than one customer; and

- for his internal administrative and bureaucratic work. In all, the taxpayer will usually be regarded as controlling the POB only where he can employ it at his discretion. This does not imply that the standards of the control test should not be flexible and adaptive. Generally, the less invasive the activities are, and the more they allow a parallel use of the same POB by other persons, the lower are the requirements under the control test. There are, however, a number of traditional PEs which by their nature require an exclusive use of the POB by only one taxpayer and/or his personnel. A small workshop (cf. Article 5(2)(e) OECD and UN MC) of 10 or 12 square meters can hardly be used by more than one person. The same holds true for a room where the taxpayer runs a noisy machine."

33. OECD commentary on Model Tax Convention mentions that a general definition of the term 'PE' brings out its essential characteristics, i.e. a distinct "situs", a "fixed place of business". This definition, therefore, contains the following conditions:

- the existence of a "place of business", i.e. a facility such as premises or, in certain instances, machinery or equipment.

- this place of business must be "fixed", i.e. it must be established at a distinct place with a certain degree of permanence;

- the carrying on of the business of the enterprise through this fixed place of business. This means usually that persons who, in oneway or another, are dependent on the enterprise (personnel) conduct the business of the enterprise in the State in which the fixed place is situated.

34. The term "place of business" is explained as covering any premises, facilities or installations used for carrying on the business of the enterprise whether or not they are used exclusively for that purpose. It is clarified that a place of business may also exist where no premises are available or required for carrying on the business of the enterprise and it simply has a certain amount of space at its disposal. Further, it is immaterial whether the premises, facilities or installations are owned or rented by or are otherwise at the disposal of the enterprise. A certain amount of space at the disposal of the enterprise which is used for business activities is sufficient to constitute a place of business. No formal legal right to use that place is required. Thus, where an enterprise illegally occupies a certain location where it carries on its business, that would also constitute a PE. Some of the examples where premises are treated at the disposal of the enterprise and, therefore, constitute PE are: a place of business may thus be constituted by a pitch in a market place, or by a certain permanently used area in a customs depot (e.g. for the storage of dutiable goods). Again the place of business may be situated in the business facilities of another enterprise. This may be the case for instance where the foreign enterprise has at its constant disposal certain premises or a part thereof owned by the other enterprise. At the same time, it is also clarified that the mere presence of an enterprise at a particular location does not necessarily mean that the location is at the disposal of that enterprise.

35. The OECD commentary gives as many as four examples where location will not be treated at the disposal of the enterprise. These are:

(a) The first example is that of a salesman who regularly visits a major customer to take orders and meets the purchasing director in his office to do so. In that case, the customer's premises are not at the disposal of the enterprise for which the salesman is working and therefore do not constitute a fixed place of business through which the business of that enterprise is carried on (depending on the circumstances, however, paragraph 5 could apply to deem a permanent establishment to exist).

(b) Second example is that of an employee of a company who, for a long period of time, is allowed to use an office in the headquarters of another company (e.g. a newly acquired subsidiary) in order to ensure that the latter company complies with its obligations under contracts concluded with the former company. In that case, the employee is carrying on activities related to the business of the former company and the office that is at his disposal at the headquarters of the other company will constitute a permanent establishment of his employer, provided that the office is at his disposal for a sufficiently long period of time so as to constitute a "fixed place of business" (see paragraphs 6 to 6.3) and that the activities that are performed there go beyond the activities referred to in paragraph 4 of the Article.

(c) The third example is that of a road transportation enterprise which would use a delivery dock at a customer's warehouse every day for a number of years for the purpose of delivering goods purchased by that customer. In that case, the presence of the road transportation enterprise at the delivery dock would be so limited that that enterprise could not consider that place as being at its disposal so as to constitute a permanent establishment of that enterprise.

(d) Fourth example is that of a painter, who, for two years, spends three days a week in the large office building of its main client. In that case, the presence of the painter in that office building where he is performing the most important functions of his business (i.e. painting) constitute a permanent establishment of that painter.

36. It also states that the words 'through which' must be given a wide meaning so as to apply to any situation where business activities are carried on at a particular location which is at the disposal of the enterprise for that purpose. For this reason, an enterprise engaged in paving a road will be considered to be carrying on its business 'through' the location where this activity takes place." On the basis of above observations by Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are unable to agree and follow view expressed by Coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-

08. 6.11.We therefore, hold that assessee has PE in the form of equipment as fixed place of business in India as per Article 5(1) of India-UAE Treaty and income earned by assessee from contracts are taxable in India.

Accordingly ground No.2-3 stands dismissed for assessment year 2008-09.

6.12. It has been submitted by both sides that facts and circumstances of case are identical and similar in all assessment years under consideration. Ground No. 1-2 for assessment year 2009-10, ground No. 1-2 for assessment year 2010-11 & assessment year 11-12; and ground No. 2, 3 for assessment year 2012-13, are in respect of issue of whether there exist fixed place of business of assessee in India which would constitute permanent establishment under article 5 (1) in India. We have already held hereinabove while deciding ground No. 2-3 for assessment year 2008-09 that the vessel in which the equipments were placed and personnel was stationed forms a fixed place of business through which the business activity has been carried on ITA Nos. 5279/Del/11 and others ULO Systems LLC by assessee thereby constituting PE in India and its income is taxable as per Article 5 (1) of DTAA.

6.13. Accordingly Ground No. 1-2 for assessment year 2009- 10, Ground No. 1-2 for assessment year 2010-11, assessment year 11-12 and Ground No-2-3 for assessment year 2012-13 stands dismissed.

7. Ground No. 4-5 for assessment year 2008-09, is raised by assessee against addition made by Ld.AO towards offshore supplies as chargeable to tax in India.

7.1. We have already held hereinabove that assessee has PE in India, offshore supplies are to be directly attributable to activities of PE in India through business connection in India in terms of section 9 (1) (i) of the Act. The alternate plea raised by assessee regarding applicability of special provision of section 44 BB of the Act, would be applicable for computing profit and gains in connection with business of exploration etc., of mineral oils or engaged in business of providing services or facilities in connection with or supplying plant and machinery on hire used or to be used in prospecting for or extraction or production of mineral oils. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ONGC Gas Corpn. Ktd., Vs.CIT reported in (2015) 59 taxmann.com 1, held as under:

"13............ Viewed thus, it is the proximity of the works contemplated under an agreement, executed with a non- resident assessee or a foreign company, with mining activity or mining operations that would be crucial for the determination of the question whether the payments made under such an agreement to the non-resident assessee or the foreign company is to be assessed under Section 44BB or Section 44D of the Act. The test of pith and substance of the ITA Nos. 5279/Del/11 and others ULO Systems LLC agreement commends to us as reasonable for acceptance. Equally important is the fact that the CBDT had accepted the said test and had in fact issued a circular as far back as 22.10.1990 to the effect that mining operations and the expressions "mining projects" or "like projects" occurring in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) of the Act would cover rendering of service like imparting of training and carrying out drilling operations for exploration of and extraction of oil and natural gas and hence payments made under such agreement to a non- resident/foreign company would be chargeable to tax under the provisions of Section 44BB and not Section 44D of the Act. We do not see how any other view can be taken if the works or services mentioned under a particular agreement is directly associated or inextricably connected with prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oil. Keeping in mind the above provision, we have looked into each of the contracts involved in the present group of cases and find that the brief description of the works covered under each of the said contracts as culled out by the appellants and placed before the Court is correct. The said details are set out below.

S. No. Civil Work covered under the contract Appeal No.

1. 4321 Drilling of exploration wells and carrying out seismic surveys for exploratory drilling.

2. 740 Drilling, furnishing personnel for manning, maintenance and operation of drilling rig and training of personnel.

3. 731 Drilling, furnishing personnel for manning, maintenance and operation of drilling rig and training of personnel.

4. 1722 Furnishing supervisory staff with expertise in operation and management of Drilling unit.

5. 729 Capping including subduing of well, fire fighting.

6. 738 Capping including subduing of well, fire fighting.

7. 1528 Analysis o

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

f data to prepare job design, procedure for execution and details regarding monitoring. 8. 1532 Study for selection of enhanced Oil Recovery processes and conceptual design of Pilot Tests. 9. 1520 Engineering and technical support to ONGC in implementation of Cyclic Steam Stimulation in Heavy Oil Wells. 10. 2794 Assessment and processing of seismic data along with engineering and technical support in implementation of Cyclic Steam Stimulation. 11. 1524 Conducting reservoir stimulation studies in association with personnel of ONGC. 12. 1535 Laboratory testing under simulated reservoir conditions. 13. 1514 Consultancy for optimal exploitation of hydrocarbon resources. 14. 2797 Consultancy for all aspects of Coal Bed Methane. 15. 6174 Analysis of data of wells to prepare a job design. 16. 1517 Geological study of the area and analysis of seismic information reports to design 2 dimensional seismic surveys. 17. 7226 Opinion on hydrocarbon resources and foreseeable potential. 18. 7227 Opinion on hydrocarbon resources and foreseeable potential. 19. 7230 Opinion on hydrocarbon resources and foreseeable potential. 20. 6016 Opinion on hydrocarbon resources and foreseeable potential. 21. 6008 Evaluation of ultimate resource potential and presentations outside India in connection with promotional activities for Joint Venture Exploration program. 22. 1531 Review of sub-surface well data, provide repair plan of wells and supervise repairs. 23. 733 Repair of gas turbine, gas control system and inspection of gas turbine and generator. 24. 741 Repair and inspection of turbines. 25. 737 Repair, inspection and overhauling of turbines. 26. 736 Inspection, engine performance evaluation, instrument calibration and inspection of far turbines. 27. 1522 Replacement of choke and kill consoles on drilling rigs. 28. 1521 Inspection of gas generators. 29. 1515 Inspection of rigs. 30. 2012 Inspection of generator. 31. 1240 Inspection of existing control system and deputing engineer to attend to any problem arising in the machines. 32. 1529 Inspection of drilling rig and ITA Nos. 5279/Del/11 and others ULO Systems LLC verification of reliability of control systems in the drilling rig. 33. 2008 Expert advice on the device to clean insides of a pipeline. 34. 2795 Feasibility study of rig to assess its remaining useful life and to carry out structural alterations. 35. 925 Engineering analysis of rig. 36. 1519 Imparting training on cased hold production log evaluation and analysis. 37. 1533 Training on well control. 38. 1518 Training on implementation of Six Sigma concepts. 39. 1516 Training on implementation of Six Sigma concepts. 40. 6023 Training on Drilling project management. 41. 2796 Training in Safety Rating System and assistance in development and audit of Safety Management System. 42. 1239 To develop technical specification for 3D Seismic API modules of work and to prepare bid packages. 43. 1527 Supply supervision and installation of software which is used for analysis of flow rate of mineral oil to determine reservoir conditions. 44. 1523 Supply, installation and familiarization of software for processing seismic data. The above facts would indicate that the pith and substance of each of the contracts/agreements is inextricably connected with prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oil." 7.2. From the records placed before us, we do not see this issue has neither been dealt with/analysed by Ld.AO/DRP, nor has Ld.Counsel brought out before us as to whether contracts entered into by assessee which are inextricably connected with prospecting or production of Mineral Oil. 7.3. Accordingly we set aside this issue to Ld.AO for determining applicability of sec.44BB having regards to ratio laid down by ITA Nos. 5279/Del/11 and others ULO Systems LLC Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ONGC Gas Corpn.Ltd. vs. CIT(supra). In the event the contracts are inextricably connected with prospecting or production of Mineral Oil, benefit must be granted to assessee under section 44 BB of the Act. 7.4. Accordingly ground 4-5 for assessment year 2008-09 raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 8. It has been submitted by both sides that facts and circumstances of case are identical and similar in all assessment years under consideration. 8.1. Accordingly Ground 3 for assessment year 2009-10, 2010- 11, 2011-12 and Ground No. 4 for assessment year 2012-13 raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Ground No.6 for assessment year 2008-09 has been raised by assessee on levying interest under section 234B of the Act. 9.1. It is observed that assessee is an overseas entity and in the appeal filed by it for the assessment years under consideration the ground has been raised to delete interest levied under section 234B of the Act. 9.2. We find force in submissions of assessee as Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd vs. DCIT, reported in (2003) 134 Taxman 109, held that, "when duty is cast on the payer to pay tax at source, on failure, no interest can be imposed on the payee-assessee." 9.3. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd vs. DCIT (supra), we are inclined to delete the interest levied under section 234B of the Act. 9.4. Accordingly we allow this ground of appeal raised by assessee for assessment year 2008-09. 10. It has been submitted by both sides that facts and circumstances of case are identical and similar in all assessment years under consideration. 10.1. Accordingly, Ground No. 4 for assessment year 2009- 10 and Ground No. 7 for assessment year 2012-13 stands allowed. 10.2. It is observed that this ground has not been raised by assessee in other intermediary assessment years. 11. Ground No. 7 for assessment year 2008-09 is in respect of levy of penalty under section 271 (1) (c) and section 271B of the Act. It is observed that this ground is consequential in nature and therefore do not require any adjudication. 11.1. Similar issue has been raised by assessee for assessment year 2009-10 being Ground No. 5, for assessment year 2010-11 being Ground No. 5-6, for assessment year 2011-12 ground No. 4-5 and for assessment year 2012-13 being Ground No. 8-9. 11.2. Assessee raised issue regarding taxing interest on income tax refund received by assessee as business income for assessment year 2010-11 being Ground No. 4 and for assessment year 2012-13 being Ground No. 5. 11.3. Further Ground No. 6 for assessment year 2012-13 is in respect of short grant of credit of TDS. 11.4. Ld.Counsel did not argue in respect of these grounds and submitted that they are not pressed. 11.5. Accordingly, we dismiss these grounds as not pressed. 12. In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

28-08-2020 M/s Urban Systems Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt of India, Min of Finance, Deptt of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
27-08-2020 M/s. Web International Cargo Ltd., Rep. by its proprietor Srinivas P. Bhat Versus M/s. Magnum Logistics Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Jayaram High Court of Karnataka
26-08-2020 Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd. & Another Versus Unwired Planet International Ltd. & Another United Kingdom Supreme Court
24-08-2020 The Director of Income-Tax International Taxation, Bangalore & Another Versus The Executive Engineer, M/s. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
20-08-2020 M/s. Life Cell International Private Limited, Represented by its Company Secretary D. Mahesh, Chennai Versus Vinay Katrela High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-08-2020 T. Nagaiah Versus M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Pvt Ltd., Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-07-2020 Director of Income Tax-II (International Taxation) New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
17-07-2020 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Delhi International Airport Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
17-07-2020 Paras International Exports Versus Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
08-07-2020 Velankani Information Systems Limited, Represented by its Manging Director, Kiron D. Shah Versus Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-07-2020 M/s. Psa Impex Pvt Ltd Versus Graeater Noida Industrial Development & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
29-06-2020 Coromandel International Ltd. (Earlier Known As Coromandel Fertillisers Ltd.) Through its Authorized Representative, Vishakhapatnam & Others Versus Kamrubai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 IRCON International Ltd. Versus M/s. Meumal Athwani High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-06-2020 M/s. Angelique International Limited Versus Public Electricity Corporation & Others High Court of Delhi
17-06-2020 Commissioner of Customs, Cochin Versus Konkan Storage Systems Kochi Pvt. Ltd., South End Reclamation, Mastyapuri, Willingdon Island High Court of Kerala
12-06-2020 Aberdeen Asia Pacific Including Japan Equity Fund Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1(1)(1) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-06-2020 Director of Income-Tax, International Taxation Versus M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. High Court of Karnataka
10-06-2020 Hotel Nikhil Sai International Bar & Restaurant Versus Assistant Commissioner ST Audit & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
09-06-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Chief Engineer High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-06-2020 Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited Versus BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
04-06-2020 M/s. Yokogawa India Ltd., Represented by its Head Treasury & Taxation & Company Secretary, B. Shivadutt Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax High Court of Karnataka
01-06-2020 Sri Vinayaka Caterors & Consultants, Partnership Firm, Represented by its Partners, K. Eshwar Versus The Executive Warden, International Hostels, Anna University, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 M/s. Shriram Capital Limited, A Limited Company represented by its Vice-President, N. Mani Versus The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-05-2020 Bhansali Productions Pvt.Ltd. Versus Eros International Medial Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-05-2020 M/s. Inter Ads Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. Versus Busworld International Cooperatieve Vennootschap Met Beperkte Anasprakelijkheid High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Banyan Tree Growth Capital L.L.C. Versus Axiom Cordages Limited (Previously Known as Axion Impex International Ltd.) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-04-2020 Flemingo Travel Retail Limited, Having Registered Office at Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, Represented by Its Authorised Signatory Nixon Varghese Versus Kannur International Airport Limited, Mattannur, Represented by Its Managing Director & Another High Court of Kerala
18-03-2020 Union of India Versus Bharat Biotech International Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
18-03-2020 M/s. Comstar Automative Technologies Private Ltd., (Formerly known as Visteon Powertrain Control Systems India Private Limited) Keelakaranai Village, Malrosapuram Post, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu District V/S The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle - I (3), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-03-2020 M/s. Asva Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Directorate of Logistics & Another Supreme Court of India
13-03-2020 Dr. Rajesh Jhorawat Versus Life Cell International Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 M/s. Inno-Tech Electronics Systems, Rep. by it's Proprietor – M. Ravichandran Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Mylapore Assessment Circle, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 M/s. Shriram Capital Limited, A Limited Company represented by its Vice-President, N. Mani Versus The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd. V/S Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, New Delhi High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Joshi Technologies International, Inc-India Projects Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
11-03-2020 M/s. Meyer Apparel Ltd. Versus M/s. Panchanan International Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
10-03-2020 Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Limited V/S Gemini Power Systems High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru
06-03-2020 Uttam Datta Versus Proprietor, International Trading Co. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
04-03-2020 In The Matter of: T. Johnson, of St. John Freight Systems Limited (Company under Insolvency) Majority Shareholder & Managing Director (Suspended) Versus St. John Freight Systems Limited Through R. Venkatakrishnan (Resolution Professional of St.John Freight Systems Limited) Partner of RVKS & Associates, Chartered Accountants, R.A. Puram, Chennai & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
03-03-2020 M/s. Vedavaag Systems Ltd. & Another Versus Ricoh India Ltd. High Court of Delhi
03-03-2020 In The Matter of: Punjab National Bank, NOIDA Uttar Pradesh Versus State Bank of India Sam Brnach, New Delhi (Branch Code-04109), New Delhi & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
03-03-2020 Cambridge International School & Another Versus Priyanka Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
28-02-2020 Seed Works International Pvt., Ltd. & Another Versus Banothu Rangamma & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
27-02-2020 Perfect Synergy Advisory Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sagar Infra Rail International Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
24-02-2020 Saurabh Kar & Another Versus Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
20-02-2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai Versus M/s. Zylog Systems Limited, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 M/s. Ram E & I Systems Private Limited, Represented by its authorized signatory, R. Sivakumar, Chennai Versus State Tax Officer, Alwarpet Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 Indo Lloyd Freight Systems Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, Represented by its Director, Sudarshan K. Aithal Versus Income Tax Officer, Nungambakkam, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 APS Forex Services Private Limited Versus Shakti International Fashion Linkers & Others Supreme Court of India
14-02-2020 Seed Works International Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Finance Controller, TN Rajan & Another Versus Banothu Tharya & Another Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
14-02-2020 TEK Systems Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Naveen Kumar Mamidala High Court of for the State of Telangana
13-02-2020 Tvl. Manohara Saraswathi Glass Works, Rep. by its Partner, Kuthalam Village, Nagapattinam District V/S The Tamilnadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar, Singaravelar Maaligai, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-02-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus C.R. Sons Builders & Development Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
07-02-2020 Swastik Builders, Satyam Apartments Next to Rowell Continental (Sunny International) & Others Versus Dr. Shobha & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-02-2020 M/s. Texcel International Pvt. Ltd., Sengundram Industrial Area (Near Ford India Ltd.,), Chengalpattu Versus M/s. Chennai Steel Tubes, Rep.by one of its Partner, G. Bhavanishankar High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Maximus ARC Ltd. V/S IDS Business Systems Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
31-01-2020 Alstom T&D India Ltd., Formerly known as Areva T&D India Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Rep. by its authorized signatory, Padappai Versus M/s. Texcel International Pvt., Ltd., Represented by Mukunthan C.O.O, Chengalpattu High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Others Versus BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
29-01-2020 SBEC Systems (India) Ltd., New Delhi & Others Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
27-01-2020 Hotel Soorya International, Represented by its Partner, S. Arumugam Versus The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-01-2020 Proteck Circuit & Systems (P) Ltd., Represented by its Manager (Accounts & Finance), Jude Christopher, Shollinganallur Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Thiruvanmiyur Assessment Circle High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-01-2020 Jkm Infra Projects Limtied, Noida Thru. Directors Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
22-01-2020 M/s. IRCON International Limited, (A Government of India Undertaking), Rep. by its Joint General Manager(South), Bangalore Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Superintending Engineer(H), Villupuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 M/s. LG. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Greater Noida Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2020 Mayur Farm Pvt. Ltd. Versus Alok Tandon,Chairman N.O.I.D.A. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
14-01-2020 Export Import Bank of India & Another Versus Punjab National Bank (International) Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-01-2020 International Car and Motors Ltd. Versus Shyam Sundar Sen & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-01-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
13-01-2020 Union of India rep. By its Enforcement Officer Enforcement Directorate Chennai Versus M/s. Raiments & Garments International, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-01-2020 Visteon Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Deputy General Manager (Indirect Taxation), T.A. Bhaskaran, Guindy, Chennai Versus The Deputy Commissioner (CT) – IV (FAC), Large Taxpayers Unit, Egmore, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 Greenesol Power Systems Pvt. Ltd V/S C.C.E., Bangalore-II Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Bangalore
09-01-2020 Ajay Kumar Bishnoi, Former Managing Director, M/s. Tecpro Systems Ltd. Versus M/s. Tap Engineering, Rep. by Jawahar High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-01-2020 Raj Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Mahanagar Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-01-2020 Phoenix International Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
06-01-2020 Haryana Excise & Taxation Welfare Organisation Versus M/s. Kone Elevator India Pvt Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-01-2020 M/s. Prime Gold International Limited, Represented by its Director Achin Aggarwal & Another Versus The Additional Director General, The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence Coimbatore Zonal Unit, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-01-2020 HDFC Bank Limited V/S KPG International Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
03-01-2020 Pacific Pipe Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Others. V/S Bank of India and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Ahmedabad
19-12-2019 J. John Winfred Versus International Airport Authority of India Rep. By Airport Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-12-2019 M/s. Saravana International, Rep. by its Proprietor C.R. Devanathan, Panruti Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Panruti High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-12-2019 Moets Catering Services Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Sandeep Bindra Versus Dr. Ambedkar International Center & Others High Court of Delhi
06-12-2019 Tuli International Through it is Partner, Neeraj Tuli Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Sh. A.K. Longai, Manager, Duly Contituted Attorney & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-12-2019 M/s. N.V. International Versus State of Assam & Others Supreme Court of India
04-12-2019 M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Regional Manager, Chennai Versus M/s. Monotech Systems Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2019 M/s. Fresh & Honest Cafe Limited Rep. by its Manager-Taxation, Rep. by its Manager-Taxatio Versus Deputy Commissioner [CT] & Another High Court of Karnataka
22-11-2019 BGR Energy Systems Limited, Represented by its Assistant Vice President Accounts, Chennai Versus The Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Office of the Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Nungambakkam, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-11-2019 Strides Air Systems (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Director D. Anil Prabhu, Thiruvallur Versus The Authorised Officer, The State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-11-2019 Shaji B. John, Kings International Ltd., Quilon & Others Versus The Marine Products Exports Development Authority, Cochin, Represented by Its Secretary, Dr. G. Santhanakrishnan High Court of Kerala
07-11-2019 SPT International & Finance Ltd. Versus Bank of Baroda & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-10-2019 M/s. Usha International Ltd., Represented by its Chief Operating Officer, Haryana Versus Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-10-2019 Superintending Engineer/ Dehar Power House Circle Bhakra Beas Management Board (Pw) Slapper & Another Versus Excise & Taxation Officer, Sunder Nagar/Assessing Authority Supreme Court of India
22-10-2019 M/s. EOS GmbH-India Branch, Rep. By its Authorized Signatory, Prakasam Anand (Country Manager), Kolathur Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 1(1), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-10-2019 Head Legal, Gmr Hyd International Airport Ltd. Versus Registrar, Airports Economic Regulatory Appellate Tribunal 2 High Court of for the State of Telangana
17-10-2019 K.P.L. International Limited, Represented by it Senior Vice President, R.P. Mundra Versus The Commercial Tax Officer Saidapet Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-10-2019 M.L. Kumawat & Another Versus Bharat Bio Tech International Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-09-2019 AREVA T & D India Limited, Rep. by its Director-Treasury & Taxation, L.V. Srinivasan Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-09-2019 Chennai Port Trust Versus Chennai International Terminals Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-09-2019 M/s. Thiru Rani Logistics Private Limited represented by C. Karthikeyan Versus M/s. Toshiba JSW Power Systems Private Limited, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-09-2019 Ajit Ravi Versus Cochin International Airport Ltd. High Court of Kerala
25-09-2019 Tecpro Systems Limited, Through its authorized representative Mr.D.Venkatasubramaniam Versus Telangana State Power Generation Company Limited, Represented by its Chief Engineer (Generation) Thermal Projects Construction-II High Court of for the State of Telangana