Offshore supply, permanent establishment, and receipt basis rulings were followed from earlier years, granting the assessee full relief.

Offshore supply receipts from the Teesta and Purulia projects were held not taxable in India under the presumptive regime or the treaty business profits article, following earlier year orders in the assessee's own case. Mitsui India Pvt. Ltd. was held not to be a dependent agency permanent establishment, so no profit was attributable to Indian operations and the alternative 20% attribution view was rejected. Project income was also to be computed on receipt basis rather than mercantile accrual for the relevant receipts. All three issues were decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether offshore supplies from the Teesta and Purulia projects were taxable in India under the presumptive regime and the treaty provision governing business profits; (ii) whether Mitsui India Pvt. Ltd. constituted a dependent agency permanent establishment and, if so, what profit was attributable to operations in India; (iii) whether income from the Teesta and Purulia projects was to be taxed on receipt basis instead of mercantile basis.

Issue (i): whether offshore supplies from the Teesta and Purulia projects were taxable in India under the presumptive regime and the treaty provision governing business profits.

Analysis: The issue was held to be covered by earlier year orders in the assessee's own case. The offshore supply receipts were found not liable to tax in India either under the presumptive provision or under the treaty article dealing with business profits, and no distinguishing feature or contrary higher-court order was shown.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether Mitsui India Pvt. Ltd. constituted a dependent agency permanent establishment and, if so, what profit was attributable to operations in India.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions in the assessee's case and held that Mitsui India Pvt. Ltd. was not a dependent agency permanent establishment. On that basis, no income could be attributed to Indian operations. The alternative finding that only 20% of profits should be attributed was also not sustained.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (iii): whether income from the Teesta and Purulia projects was to be taxed on receipt basis instead of mercantile basis.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied its earlier view that, in the presumptive computation adopted for the relevant receipts, the income was to be determined on the basis of actual receipts and not by invoking mercantile accrual for the same project receipts. No contrary material was brought to disturb the settled position.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The consolidated decision leaves the Revenue without relief and grants the assessee complete relief on the substantive issues examined, resulting in disposal of all connected matters.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an earlier year's decision in the assessee's own case on identical facts has attained finality, and no distinguishing feature or contrary higher-court ruling is shown, the Tribunal will follow that view on offshore supply taxation, permanent establishment attribution, and related computation issues.

---