Director Income Tax (International Taxation) Delhi-Ii, New Delhi v. M/S Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. …………

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 9 of 2010 Director Income Tax (International Taxation) Delhi-II, New Delhi. ………………Appellant. Versus M/s Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. …………. Respondent Income Tax Appeal No. 8 of 2010 Director Income Tax (International Taxation) Delhi-II, New Delhi. ………………Appellant. Versus M/s Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. …………. Respondent Present: Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral) The only question was, whether factually the profit pertaining to the Korean operations took place outside India or not? After having had considered the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court followed by the instructions issued by this Court, the matter was considered afresh, when factually, it was recorded by the Tribunal that the profit on account of Korean operations (designing and fabrication) arose outside India. In the grounds of Appeals, it has not been contended that this finding of fact is erroneous on any count whatsoever. In relation to the remaining, the Tribunal has stated, in so many words, that there is no dispute regarding quantum of profit earned in the Indian operation attributed to Indian PE of assessee. Against this categoric observation, in the grounds of Appeals, it has not been contended, at all, that this recording by the Tribunal is erroneous. In the event the assessee, despite having a PE in India, has earned profit and such profit arose entirely outside India, question of Indian Tax Authority taxing the assessee in India in respect of such profit will never arise and, at the same time, if a non–resident assessee, having a permanent establishment in India, has earned profit out of Indian operation, Indian Tax Authority is entitled to recover tax payable thereon in accordance with the Income Tax Act. Insofar as the latter observation is concerned, the dispute inter se the parties may be as regards the quantum. As aforesaid, there is no dispute pertaining to the quantum. 2. We, accordingly, dismiss the Appeals. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 20.05.2013 20.05.2013 P. Singh