Latest Income-Tax Details

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the dictum that existence of a PE is a finding of fact and allowed relief relying upon case laws distinguishable from the case on hand on facts, thus ignoring the whelming facts in support of existence of PE.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 90 of Income Tax Act, 1961 - Double taxation relief - The issue which is arising in the appeal is whether there is DAPE. The AO has alleged the existence of DAPE on account of alleged marketing activities undertaken by Indian entity on behalf of the assessee-company. The case of the assessee is that it is an entity in Singapore and has entered into TLA with only YRIPL, which was in charge of operations of Pizza Hut and KFC restaurants in India. In order to run its business, YRIPL had franchised different outlets and was also running own stores. YRMPL was set up for undertaking AMP activities on behalf of YRIPL and its franchisees. The assessee-company was not a party to this agreement which was exclusively between the Indian concern and its marketing company. The AO was of the view that the marketing activities also benefit the assessee-company and hence DAPE. The marketing activities undertaken by the YRMPL were on behalf of the YRIPL and its franchisees and in the absence of any link whatsoever with the business of the assessee-company, there is no merit in attribution of contribution made by the Independent third-party franchisees, to constitute PE of the assessee-company in India. Further, the assessee has no PE in India and no business is undertaken in India, hence no fixed place PE also. Appeal of the revenue dismissed. - DY. DIT V/s YUM! RESTAURANTS (ASIA) PTE. LTD. - [2020] 206 TTJ 657 (ITAT-DELHI)