2016 (12) TMI 1900

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate ORDER CM No. 30034 & 30036 of 2016 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications stand disposed off. CM Nos.30033 & 30035/2016 (for delay) 2. These applications seek condo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., travel agencies and the other like business entities. In the relevant order, premised upon an approval report submitted by it to the Income Tax Authorities and the revenue generated in India, the Tribunal held that the assessee had a Permanent Establishment (PE) within the meaning under Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and USA. It then went on to analyze ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt, rejected. 7. In these circumstances, in the assessee's cross-appeal to the ITAT against the findings with respect to its PE, the Tribunal attributed 15% income to the assessee's India operations, following the previous judgment of this Court in DIT Vs. Galileo International Inc. (2009) 336 ITR 264. 8. Mr. Vohra, Senior Advocate, who appears for the assessee, contends that 15% attribution....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....esisted the appeal and submitted that the ITAT was correct in following the decision of Galileo International Inc's case (supra) in the circumstances. 10. It is apparent from the above discussion that the specific and limited challenge by the Revenue in this appeal is to the ITAT's order, rather mechanical adherence to the Galileo International Inc's case (supra) attribution, principally to the....