IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1932/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2022-23)

GE Global Parts & Products Vs Assistant Commissioner of GMBH, Brown Boverit Strasse Income Tax, Circle 8, Baden, Switzerland International Taxation 1(3)(1) PAN: AAGCG3668K Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Sh. Aditya Vohra, Adv. & Sh. Arpit Goyal, CA Revenue by Sh. Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT(DR)

Date of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 17 /10/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the Final Assessment Order dated 10/01/2025 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.Section144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short)

pertaining to Assessment Year 2022-23.

2. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the solitary issue to be considered in the present Appeal is as to whether the Assessee had PE in India during the Assessment Year under consideration or not. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the said issue has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal inAssessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2019-20 and 2018-19 in ITA No. 2033/Del/2022 vide order dated 25/07/2023 and other connected matters. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.

3. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that other Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been considered by the Bench for Assessment Year 2018-19 and 2019-20, therefore, sought for dismissal of the Appeal by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities.

4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2018-19 and 2019-20 in ITA No. 2033/Del/2022 and other connected matters vide order dated

25/07/2023 held as under:-

“6. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. As discussed earlier, the short issue arising for consideration is whether the assessees had PE in India during the assessment years under consideration? From the facts and materials on record, it is observed, not only before the Assessing Officer, but even before learned DRP, the assessees have vehemently urged that since the factual position in the impugned assessment years have substantially changed, the decision taken in past assessment years cannot be followed blindly. It was the case of assessees before the departmental authorities that as per the facts of the impugned assessment years, the assessees had no PE in India as the AIFACS building considered as the PE of the assessees was vacated by GEIOC on 01.05.2012. It was pleaded by the assessee that in these years, no expatriates have visited in India. As it appears, the departmental authorities have turned a blind eye to all the submissions and facts brought on record by the assessee. Merely following the decision taken by the appellate authorities and Hon’ble High Court in past assessment years, the departmental authorities have concluded the existence of PE without looking into or examining the facts and evidences brought on record, which are very much relevant for deciding the existence of PE in the impugned assessment years. It is observed, while deciding identical issue in case of NuovoPignone International SRL Vs. DCIT (supra)

involving identical facts, the Coordinate Bench has held as under: “10. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. We have also applied our mind to the judicial precedents cited before us. The short issue arising for consideration is whether the assessee had a PE, either fixed place PE or dependent agent PE, in India during the year under consideration. No doubt, the past assessment history of the assessee reveals that existence of PE in India was upheld by the Tribunal and Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in assessment years 2002-03 to 2006-07 a