Home › › Page 2

Search Results For: Permanent Establishment

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 4, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 18, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Article 7: There is a difference between "effectively connected" with the permanent establishment and "legally connected" with it. Only those activities necessary for the functioning of the PE are "effectively connected" with the PE. Article 13: Concept of "make available" technical knowledge etc explained

In the present case certain activities are carried out by the appellant which are not even concerned with the functioning of the permanent establishment therefore in our view only the activities which are performed by the permanent establishment are effectively connected with the permanent establishment and activities which are not carried on by the permanent establishment but are carried out by the head office of the appellant are not “effectively connected” with the permanent establishment. We are also of the view that the term “effectively connected” should not be understood to mean the opposite of “legally connected” but rather something in the sense of “really connected”. Therefore the activities mentioned in the contract should be connected to the permanent establishment not only in the form but also in substance. It is also interesting to note that the permanent establishment of the assessee has been admitted by the appellant only because of the reason that some of the employees of the appellant came to India from time to time for short visit and further certain freelancers were appointed for undertaking the own ground implementation related supervision activities in India. Therefore according to us there are minimum activities performed by the PE of appellant in India. Hence just performing such minimum activities it cannot be said that whole of the revenue of Rs. 33 crores involved in the contract is “effectively connected” with the activities of the permanent establishment in India. Hence we reject the contention of the assessee that the whole of the revenue involved in the contract should be considered as effectively connected with the permanent establishment of the appellant.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 2, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 4, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Law on whether "installation or construction activity" constitutes a PE under Article 5 and whether "mobilisation/ demobilisation charges" can be treated as "royalty" u/s 9 (1) (vi) & Article 12 (3) (b) of the DTAA and whether "installation charges" could be treated as "Fees for Technical Services" under Explanation 2 below s. 9 (1) (vii) read with Article 12 (4) (a) of the India-Singapore DTAA explained

Therefore, on two counts the finding of the AAR on FTS cannot be sustained. The first being that the installation services are not incidental to the mobilisation/demobilisation service. The contract was in fact for installation, erection of equipment. Mobilisation/demobilisation constituted an integral part of the contract. Secondly, the AAR has proceeded on a factual misconception that the dominion and control of the equipment was with IOCL. It was erroneously concluded that the payment for such mobilisation/demobilisation constitutes royalty. In that view of the matter, the consideration for installation cannot not be characterized as FTS and brought within the ambit of Article 12.4(a) of the DTAA. The resultant position is that no part of the income earned by the Petitioner from the contract with IOCL can be taxed in India

Read more ›

Posted on by itatbar
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 23, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 26, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Installation services provided by a foreign enterprise which are inextricably connected to the sale of goods are not assessable as "fees for technical services" or as "business profits" under the DTAA

Though service of installation is covered by the FTS clause as well as Installation PE clause of the India China treaty and though the installation contract (including period of after sales service) exceeded 183 days, the income from installation activity was neither taxable as FTS nor as business income since (i) the service of installation was inextricably connected to sale of goods, the same could not be treated as FIS or FTS (ii) specific installation PE clause in India China Treaty will override General FTS clause (iii) the aforesaid threshold limit of 183 days would have to be applied to the actual period of installation (which was less than 183 days) and not the contractual period

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 16, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 19, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Entire law on what constitutes a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article 5(1), 5(2)(l) or Article 5(5) of the Indo-USA DTAA explained. If the alleged PE has been assessed on ALP basis in terms of Article 7, no income has escaped escapement so as to justify issue of s. 148 notice

Even if the subsidiary of a foreign company is considered as its PE, only such income as is attributable in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 7 can be brought to tax. In the present case, there is no dispute that Adobe India – which according to the AO is the Assessee’s PE – has been independently taxed on income from R&D services and such tax has been computed on the basis that its dealings with the Assessee are at arm’s length (that is, at ALP). Therefore, even if Adobe India is considered to be the Assessee’s PE, the entire income which could be brought in the net of tax in the hands of the Assessee has already been so taxed in the hands of Adobe India. There is no material that would even remotely suggest that the Assessee has undertaken any activity in India other than services which have already been subjected to ALP scrutiny/adjustment in the hands of Adobe India

Read more ›

Posted on by Ankul Goyal
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 4, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 5, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Important principles laid down whether profits arising from off-shore supply of goods can be taxed in India on basis that (a) the goods continued in the possession of seller till acceptance of the goods by buyer in India, (b) the seller had a liaison office in India, (c) the seller had a wholly-owned subsidiary in India which negotiated contacts with the buyer, (d) installation, commissioning etc services were provided in India etc

The controversy whether the Assessee has a PE in India is interlinked to the finding that Nortel India had discharged some of the obligations of the Assessee under the Equipment Contract. Whilst, the Income Tax Authorities have held that the contracts entered into with Reliance – the Equipment Contact, Software Contract and Services Contract – are essentially a part of the singular turnkey contract, the Assessee contends to the contrary. Further, the Income Tax Authorities have held that a part of the Equipment Contract assigned to the Assessee was, in fact, performed by Nortel India. This too, is stoutly disputed by the Assessee. The question whether the Assessee has a PE in India is clearly interlinked with the issue whether Nortel India or Nortel LO had performed any of the functions or discharged any of the obligations assumed by the Assessee. Assessee argued that agreement for supply of hardware (Equipment Contract) could have been directly executed between Reliance and the Assessee but owing to relaince’s insistence on an Indian company being responsible for the entire works, agreements were executed between Nortel India and Reliance, with Nortel Canada as a surety.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 11, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 17, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
A Power of Attorney executed by the Head Office in favour of the Liaison Office in India does not create a Permanent Establishment if the powers are specific to the liaison office and are not unfettered powers to enable to Liaison Office to act on behalf of the enterprise

The sole basis on which the AO as well as the DRP came to a conclusion that the assessee had a P.E. in India is the clauses in power of attorney executed by the head office in favour of its employee in the L.O. in India. Reliance was also placed on the permission granted by the RBI to the assessee for setting up the L.O. A plain reading of the clauses in the power of attorney takes us to a conclusion that the powers given therein are L.O. specific. The AO’s conclusion that the power of attorney granted unfettered powers to its L.O. employee, to do all or any acts for and on behalf of the assessee, is incorrect. In our view the finding of the AO that the power of attorney is an open ended document, which is clearly outside the scope of initial permission granted by the RBI is also perverse. No doubt the AO can investigate, call for evidences and come to a conclusion where any income earning activity has been carried out by the L.O. so as to construe it as fixed P.E. but, in our view it is beyond the jurisdiction of the AO to adjudicate and conclude that the assessee has filed false declarations before the RBI. At best, he can bring his findings to the notice of the RBI which may consider the same in accordance with law. The RBI has not found any violation of conditions laid down by it while permitting the assessee to have an L.O. In such circumstances, no adverse inference can be drawn

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 30, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 26, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
An installation project which does not last more than 183 days in a fiscal year is not a "Permanent Establishment" and the business profits are taxable only in Singapore under Article 7(1) of the India-Singapore DTAA

Since the project executed by the applicant in India for Brahmaputra continued only for 178 days in a fiscal year and as the duration of the project is less than 183 days in a fiscal year, Permanent Establishment of the applicant cannot be constituted in India for the FY 2012-13 as per the provisions of Article 5.3 of the India-Singapore DTAA. Hence, the business profits accruing or arising to the applicant by way of the execution of the project under reference is taxable only in the country where the applicant is a resident, as per Article 7.1 of India-Singapore DTAA

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 8, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 20, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Entire law on taxability of "fees for technical services" under the "make available" clause of the DTAA explained

Services can be said to ‘make available’ technical knowledge etc, where such technical knowledge is transferred to the person utilizing the service (i.e. the appellant in the instant case) and such person is able to make use of the technical knowledge etc, by himself in his business or for his own benefit and without recourse to the performer of services (i.e OlofGranlund) in the future. The mere fact that provision of service may require technical knowledge by the person providing the service would not per se mean that knowledge has been made available

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 13, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Service PE: Establishing subsidiary in other treaty country does not result in creating PE of a foreign holding company in the third country. As the employees of SRSIPL are not providing services to the assessee as if they were the employees of the assessee, there is no "service PE"

The AO is not right in (i) treating the assessee as having a Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment; (ii) laying down that the assessee has a business connection in India; (iii) treating SRSIPL as service PE and (iv) treating SRSIPL as Agency PE

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 24, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 31, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11 & 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Though construction, installation and assembly activities are de facto in the nature of technical services, the consideration thereof will not be assessable under Article 12 but will only be assessable under Article 7 if an “Installation PE” is created under Article 5. As Article 5 is a specific provision for installation etc, it has to prevail over Article 12

On the question as to whether the said receipt for installation, commissioning or assembly etc activity can be assessed as “fees for technical services”, it is seen that the DTAA has a general provision in Article 12 for rendering of technical services and a specific provision in Article 5 for rendering of technical services in the nature of construction, installation or project or supervisory services in connection therewith. As there is an overlap between Article 5 and Article 12, the special provision (Article 5) has to prevail over the general provision (Article 12). What is the point of having a PE threshold time limit for construction, installation and assembly projects if such activities, whether cross the threshold time limit or not, are taxable in the source state anyway. If we are to proceed on the basis that the provisions of PE clause as also FTS clause must apply on the same activity, and even when the project fails PE test, the taxability must be held as FTS at least, not only the PE provisions will be rendered meaningless, but for gross versus net basis of taxation, it will also be contrary to the spirit of the UN Model Convention Commentary. Accordingly, though construction, installation and assembly activities are de facto in the nature of technical services, the consideration thereof will not be assessable under Article 12 but will only be assessable under Article 7 if an “Installation PE” is created

Read more ›