Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
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 
