Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The Delhi High Court held that the Indian establishment did not constitute a Fixed Place PE for the petitioner. The court noted that the premises in Noida and Varanasi did not meet the criteria of a "virtual projection" or complete takeover for conducting core business activities. The impugned notices u/s 147/148 lacked evidence to establish a Fixed Place PE. The court emphasized that the Indian subsidiary's activities were "preparatory" or "auxiliary" and not core business functions. The respondents failed to prove that the Indian subsidiary was a mere conduit for the petitioner. The court quashed the reassessment proceedings and notices u/s 148, while keeping open the issue of whether the Delhi office constitutes a PE. The transfer of the petitioner's PAN jurisdiction was also quashed.
The Delhi High Court held that the Indian establishment did not constitute a Fixed Place PE for the petitioner. The court noted that the premises in Noida and Varanasi did not meet the criteria of a "virtual projection" or complete takeover for conducting core business activities. The impugned notices u/s 147/148 lacked evidence to establish a Fixed Place PE. The court emphasized that the Indian subsidiary's activities were "preparatory" or "auxiliary" and not core business functions. The respondents failed to prove that the Indian subsidiary was a mere conduit for the petitioner. The court quashed the reassessment proceedings and notices u/s 148, while keeping open the issue of whether the Delhi office constitutes a PE. The transfer of the petitioner's PAN jurisdiction was also quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
