Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 
