Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Amadeus It Group Sa, New Delhi vs Dcit(International Taxation), ... on 29 January, 2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH 'D' : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA No.2007/Del./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201314) ITA No.3494/Del./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201415) ITA No.7970/Del./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201516) ITA No.7047/Del./2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201617) Amadeus IT Group SA, vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), C/o Vaish Associates, Advocates, Intl. Taxation, 1st Floor, Mohan Dev Building, New Delhi. 13, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi 110 001. (PAN : AAFCA9629P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate Shri Anshul Sacchar, CA Shri Karan Jain, CA REVENUE BY : Dr. Prabha Kant, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 20.01.2021 Date of Order : 29.01.2021 ORDER 2 ITA No.2007/Del./2017 ITA No.3494/Del./2018 ITA No.7970/Del./2018 ITA No.7047/Del./2019 PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Since common questions of facts and law have been raised in the interconnected appeals, the same are being disposed off by way of consolidated order to avoid repetition of discussion. 2. Appellant, Amadeus IT Group SA (hereinafter referred to as 'the taxpayer') by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 04.01.2017, 24.11.2017, Nil & 27.06.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) in consonance with the orders passed by the ld. DRP/TPO under section 143 (3) read with section 144C(13) of the Incometax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') qua the assessment years 201314, 201415, 201516 & 201617 respectively on the identical grounds, except the difference of additions/disallowances, inter alia that : "1. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in computing the income of the appellant for the relevant assessment year at Rs.416,18,80,875/ as against 'Nil' income returned by the appellant. 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in alleging that the appellant avoided furnishing specific information called for in the assessment, particularly the various agreements with the airlines. Re: CRS income Permanent establishment 3. That the Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP')/assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding the appellant to be liable to tax in India in respect of receipts from airlines, etc. relating to segments booked from India through the appellant's computer reservation system, not appreciating that no income accrued or arose to the appellant in India. 3 ITA No.2007/Del./2017 ITA No.3494/Del./2018 ITA No.7970/Del./2018 ITA No.7047/Del./2019 4. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that computers, electronic hardware/software and the connectivity provided by the appellant to the travel agents through SITA/ third party nodes located in India, collectively, constituted PE of the appellant in India under Article 5 of the IndoSpain DTAA ("the Treaty") and the income arising to the appellant from the airlines, etc. was attributable to the activities of the alleged PE in India. 4.1 That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that as the website of the appellant shows that it has various offices in India for performing functions like training, product development, technical support, etc. such office premises constitute fixed place PE of the appellant in India. 5. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in alleging that Amadeus India (P) Ltd. (AIPL) constituted dependent agent permanent establishment (PE) of the appellant in India and the income arising to the appellant from the airlines, etc., was attributable to the activities of the alleged PE in India. 5.1 That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in alleging that the appellant was not making any payment to AIPL towards the acti