Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
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 
