Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 1978 2015 SLD 1978 (2015) 373 ITR 65
Delhi High Court
IT APPEAL Nos. 352 TO 391 & 402 OF 2014, JANUARY 12, 2015
S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND R.K. GAUBA, JJ
Balbir Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel and Ms. Rubal Maini, Advocate for the Appellant. Sachit Jolly and Ms. Gargi Bhatt, Advocatesfor the
Respondent

Director of INCOME TAX, International TaxationvsGE Packaged Power Inc

Law: Income Tax Act, 1961

Section: 260A,133A,234A,234B,148,195

ORDER S. Ravindra Bhat, J. - In these appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as "the Act"), the Revenue questions the common order of the ITAT dated 16.7.2013 in ITA No.6034/Del-2010 and connected appeals, by which the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") deleting the interest levied under Section 234B, was confirmed. The Revenue argues that the substantial question of law which arises for consideration is whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) fell into error in holding that the assessee could not be saddled with interest liability under Section 234B of the Act. 2. Briefly, the facts are that General Electric group was manufacturing equipment relating to oil and gas, energy, transportation and aviation, for supply to customers in India. After a survey under Section 133A at the premises of General Electric International Operations Company Inc. ("GEIOC"), the liaison office, reassessment proceedings were initiated against several entities of the GE group for assessment years (AYs) 2000- 2001 till AY 2006-07, on 31.3.2008. The respondents in these appeals are 8 such entities ("assessees") i.e. GE Packaged Power Inc., GE Jenbacher Gmbh, Nuovo Pignone Spa, GE Engine Services Inc., GE Energy Parts Inc., GE Aircraft Engine Services Ltd., GE Engine Services Malaysia, and GE Japan Ltd., over various AYs. The assessees filed NIL returns of income and sought reasons for reopening assessment, which were duly provided. Objections to reassessment were disposed of, and notice under Section 143(2) was issued, and final assessment order was issued. The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessees had a permanent establishment ("PE") in India. The taxable income of the assessees was computed by attributing some percentage of the sale price/consideration received as profits to the PE; interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Act was also levied. 3. The assessees appealed against the order of the AO; the CIT(A) disposed of the appeals by its order of 30.9.2010, confirming the reopening of the assessment, the finding on existence of PEs in India, and the attribution of profits to the PEs. However, on…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register