Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
