2014 (3) TMI 1109

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lding that assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India de'hors the finding of the A.O. that the functions of EPCOS AG are performed through the Indian Subsidiaries by issuance of directions through emails etc. and the entire spectrum of activities of the Indian Subsidiaries are monitored by the assessee thus having control and management of Indian Subsidiaries and thereby constituting a PE in India. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-IT/TP, Pune erred in law by holding that even if a PE exists but if the receipts sourced from India are not attributable to the PE, then the case of the assessee would still fall under Art. 12(2) and exclusion clause provided in Art. 12(5) woul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Officer taxed the above amount of Rs. 14,92,60,305/- u/s.115A (in case of interest) and u/s.115A r.w.s. 44DA (in case of royalty and FTS) @ 20% without allowing any deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance under any of the provisions from sections 28 to 44C. The Assessing Officer reached this conclusion by holding that the assessee company's Permanent Establishment (PE) is located in India in the form of EPCOS India Private Limited. He held that the subsidiary in India is acting as dependent agent of assessee's company. 3. The matter was carried before first appellate authority, wherein the various contentions were raised on behalf of assessee and having considered the same, the CIT(A) observed that foreign entity's business....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessment year 2003-04. It is a fact that neither the AO, nor the DRP, nor the present CIT-DR were able to demonstrate as to whether the facts of the current year are different in any form with that of assessment year 2003-04. Merely, the DR mentioned that nobody has gone into that issue, therefore, the matter should be set aside. We are unable to appreciate this line of argument of the CIT-DR for the simple reason that it is the responsibility of the AO first of all to follow the jurisdictional decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the AY 2003-04. The same was not followed and surprisingly, they have not even distinguished. They simply ignored stating that the said order- is not accepted by the Revenue and the matter i....