ITAT Delhi Deletes Rs 7.28 Crore Income Tax Addition Over Alleged Permanent Establishment in India:

ITAT Delhi Deletes Rs 7.28 Crore Income Tax Addition Over Alleged Permanent Establishment in India

The ITAT Delhi deleted additions of Rs 7.28 Crore holding the taxpayer had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.

ITAT Holds Taxpayer Did Not Have Any PE in India

authorSaloni KumaridateJun 5, 2026
Last update on Jun 5, 2026
ITAT Delhi Deletes Rs 7.28 Crore Income Tax Addition Over Alleged Permanent Establishment in India The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi held that the assessee company, Imax Corporation, did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India during Assessment Year 2022-23; hence, the impugned additions were deleted. The tax authorities had alleged that the assessee had a fixed place PE and an installation/supervisory PE in India in connection with agreements for the sale and installation of its theatre systems. Based on this allegation, the Assessing Officer (AO) proposed certain additions: Rs 3.53 crore on Sale of Theatre System, Rs 34.95 lakh on Sale of Glasses and Others, Rs 3.02 crore on Installation Services, and Rs 38.34 lakh on Theatre Design Services.
ITAT Directs TP Reassessment And Holds Only AE Transactions Can Be Benchmarked for ALP Determination
The assessee argued that it only sold theatre systems to Indian customers and provided limited installation-related support. The company pointed out that it did not own, lease, or control any premises in India. It further explained that only one employee visited India during the relevant financial year for five days to inspect a customer’s site, while the actual installation work took place in the following financial year. After examining the facts, the Tribunal held that the essential conditions for a fixed place PE were not satisfied. The customer’s theatre premises were not at the disposal of the assessee, and the company had no continuous business presence or control over those locations.
India to Eliminate Capital Gains Taxes on Investments Made by Foreign Investors in Government Bonds
The Tribunal also rejected the allegation of an installation or supervisory PE. Under the India-Canada Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), such a PE would arise only if installation or supervisory activities continued for more than 120 days. The Tribunal noted that the employee’s visit lasted only five days and the later installation activities lasted merely 17 days, far below the required threshold. Accordingly, the ITAT held that the assessee had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and deleted the impugned additions made by the tax authorities. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

About Author

LinkedIn

Saloni Kumari

Content Writer

Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2443
Up Next

Loading suggestions…