TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 634
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g grounds of appeal: 1.1 That the Assessing officer ('AO') and Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred on facts and in law in computing the income of the Appellant for the relevant assessment year at Rs. 2,88,06,946/- as against 'Nil' income returned by the Appellant. 1.2 That the AO and the DRP failed to appreciate that the Appellant had supplied spare parts/equipments on an offshore basis and had undertaken offshore repair services outside India. Thus, the Appellant has no income in India neither has permanent establishment ('PE') under the India-USA DTAA ('the Tax Treaty'). 1.3 That the AO and the DRP grossly erred in mechanically following the assessment order (s) passed in earlier assessment year 2002- 03 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sumptions/inferences made by the AO and DRP: (a) That the GE International Operations Company Inc. Liaison Office ("GEIOC LO") has a PE in India; (b) The business of the Appellant in India is being conducted by the expatriate employees of GE group with the support of employees drawn from GE Indian entities; (c) The expatriate alongwith their team have at their disposal a fixed place of business in India in the form of office premises at AIFACS, 1, Rafi Marg, New Delhi through which they operate and carry on the business; (d) The teams in India were performing all the functions required for marketing and sale of the equipment/products sold in India and these activities were the core activity of marketing, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anically placing reliance on earlier assessment years AY 2002-03 to 2008-09 and further erred in holding that the presence of GEII's expatriates and/or employees of GEIIPT created a business connection of the Appellant under the Act. 2.4 That the AO and the DRP, in facts and circumstances of the case and in law, further erred in assessing the income of Appellant under the Tax Treaty, by holding that the Appellant constitutes a PE in India viz, (a) fixed place of PE under Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Tax Treaty; (b) dependent agent PE under Article 5(4) and 5(5) of the Tax Treaty. 2.5 That the AO and DRP erred in holding that the Appellant had a fixed place PE in India without appreciating that the activities carried out in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Without prejudice, the AO and the DRP failed to appreciate that since no part of the activity relating to the sale / repair of the equipment and spare parts were carried out in India, the question of attribution of any income to India did not arise. 2.11 Without prejudice the Assessing Officer and the DRP erred in making attribution of income of Rs. 2,88,06,946/- to the alleged PE in India, inter alia, on the following grounds : (a) Arbitrarily estimating taxable profits in the hands of the Appellant in India in respect of offshore sales and repair services undertaken to the Indian Customers; (b) Arbitrarily allocating 35 percent of aforesaid profits towards marketing activities; (c ) Allocating the entir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, documents and papers as may be considered necessary wither before or during the time of hearing. 1. At the outset Ld. counsel was fair enough to submit that all the issues are covered by the order of this Tribunal in the case of GE Energy Parts Inc. vs ADIT reported in (2017) 56 ITR (Trib) 51 Ld.Counsel submitted that as paragraph 52.5 of the decision, constituted agency PE in India and therefore he submitted that Ground No. 1 is against assessee. Accordingly respectfully following the decision of this Tribunal in case of GE Energy Parts Inc. vs ADIT(supra) we dismiss this ground. 2. He submitted that as assessee is held to have an agency PE in India, the business income received in relation to offshore supply of spa....