TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 380
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome Tax Tribunal Delhi Bench "I-2" New Delhi dated 28th May, 2019, in several ITAs preferred before it, pertaining to the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10. The Tribunal has rejected the said appeals preferred by the appellant, inter alia, on the premise that this Court has held in favour of the revenue vide its decision dated 30^th August, 2011 reported as [2011] 13 taxmann.com 233 (Delhi) Rolls Royce PLC vs. Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) that the Rolls-Royce India Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'RRIL'), a hundred percent subsidiary of the appellant, constituted Permanent Establishment (hereinafter referred to as 'PE') of the appellant/assessee in India. The Tribunal took note of the fact th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted PE of the assessee in India. 4. The earlier decision against the appellant-assessee, holding that RRIL constituted its PE in India, pertains to the assessment years 1997-98 to 200304. The present appeal pertains to the assessment year 2004-05. The appellant has not been able to point out any pertinent difference in facts prevailing in the assessment year in question, and the assessment years to which the decision of this Court relates. 5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has, in fact, considered and rejected the same arguments as advanced by the appellant before it. We may extract the relevant portion of the impugned order in this regard: "10. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....after detailed reasoning and finding has held that the liaison office of RRIL also constitutes a PE for the assesse, i.e., RRPL in India. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court though has upheld the order of the Tribunal, however has noted that the issue of PE was not pressed or argued. Now that this matter is pending before the Hon 'ble Supreme Court as informed by the Ld. Counsel, therefore, as a matter of judicial precedence, we cannot take a different view and decide the issue a fresh taking any other view. Another set of argument placed by the ld. counsel before us is that the PE of assessee was in fact liaison office of RRIL in India, which is separately assessed to tax in India and its profit and taxability now has attained finality in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (b) The activity of this fixed place is not a preparatory or auxiliary, but is a core activity of marketing, negotiating, selling of the product. This is a virtual extension/ projection of its customer facing business unit, who has the responsibility to sell the products belonging to the group. (c) RRIL acts almost like a sales office of RR Plc and its group companies. (d) RRIL and its employees work wholly and exclusively for the Roll Royce Plc and the Group. (e) RRIL and its employees are soliciting and receiving orders wholly and exclusively on behalf of the Rolls Royce Group (f) Employees of Rolls Royce Group are also present in various locations in India and they report to the Director of RRIL i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee, the authorities have not relied upon the said explanation at all, and the determination of the said issue was undertaken dehors the said explanation, upon appreciation of the evidence unearthed during the survey. The explanation may, or may not, be prospective. In any event, the same would certainly not have the effect of nullifying the determination made on the issue of PE on the basis of the evidence collected and the pre existing law as prevalent prior to the amendment of Section 9(1) with effect from 1st April, 2019. That, clearly, is not the purport of the substituted Clause (a) of Explanation-2 to Section 9(1) of the Act, with effect from 1st April, 2019. 8. Another argument advanced by Mr. Billimoria is that the income o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case if it has been found by the Tribunal that independently also the activity of assessee was somehow linked with LO, therefore, no interference can be made and since this issue has been decided against the assesse we do not find any reason to go into further deep analysis and form a different view, because there is no material change in facts and circumstances. RRIL activities was carrying out sales and marketing in India for RR International and nothing has been produced before us to show that these activities were also assessed as business PE on a profit split or appropriate method. The record shows that RRIL was assessed only as a dependent agent and a service PE on the cost plus margin basis and therefore, it cannot be concluded that ....