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

....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 condonation of delay, which is stated to be of 22....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 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 the exact income derived by the assessee from its PE.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see'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 by the ITAT in the impugned order was warranted. He justi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 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 extent it followed the 15% ratio. In the present case, the AO....