Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › AAR › Golf-in-Dubai vs. DIT (AAR)

Golf-in-Dubai vs. DIT (AAR)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 18, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Where the assessee foreign company was a golf organizer and entered into arrangements with Indian parties for conducting golf events in India and earned income by way of sponsor fees, management fees etc and the question arose whether such income was taxable in India, HELD:

(i) In order to constitute a “permanent establishment” under Article 5.1 of the Treaty, there had to be a “fixed place” through which “the business was carried on”.

(ii) During the days when the golf tournament is conducted, the Golf Course can be regarded as a “place of business” because the center of income earning activities was at that particular place and the Golf Course was at the disposal of the applicant for the stipulated time frame and it could exercise some limited rights. The fact that the duration is short is not relevant.

(iii) However, the words ‘carried on’ conveys the ingredient of regularity, continuity and repetitiveness and as there was a solitary or isolated activity during the year, it was difficult to infer the existence of a PE.

Related Judgements

  1. Dell International vs. CIT (AAR) 

    The agreement was for rendering a ‘service’ and did not involve consideration for the ‘use or right to use equipment’ and not ‘royalty’ u/s 9 (1) (via). The consideration was not a ‘rental’ as the payee was not in custody or control of the equipment of BTA. The meanings…
  2. Small Business Corp vs. DIT (AAR) 

    For purposes of Article 20 of the India-Korea DTAA, a Government undertaking with corporate status cannot be equated to the Government. Even if the Articles of Incorporation make it clear that the Government has pervasive control over the undertaking, it still cannot be treated to be a wing or…
  3. Foster’s Australia Limited vs. CIT (AAR) 

    As the trademarks etc had been registered and used in India and enjoyed high reputation and goodwill in the Indian market, they had a “tangible presence” in India and were located in India. The facts showed that they became inextricable components of the business of manufacture and marketing of…
  4. Anapharm Inc vs. DIT (AAR) 

    In order to consider the meaning of the term “make available” in Article 12 of the India-Canada DTAA, one can have regard to the India-USA DTAA. The term requires that the service provider should also make his technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how etc., known to the recipient of the…
  5. Burmah Castrol Plc vs. DIT (AAR) 

    The s. 197 proceedings did not create any embargo because the order had worked itself out and in any event the s. 197 order was a tentative measure for TDS and did not in anyway fetter the jurisdiction of the AAR.
    Read more ›