|DATE:||(Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||June 9, 2012 (Date of publication)|
|Click here to download the judgement (aramex_subsidiary_PE.pdf)|
A subsidiary created for Indian business is a PE of the foreign parent
The applicant, a Singapore company, entered into an agreement with an Indian group subsidiary company for the performance of shipment transport services within & outside India. The agreement was on a principal to principal basis. The applicant claimed that as it had no office, equipment, employee or agent in India and did not carry out operations in India, it did not have a PE in India and no part of the receipts from outbound and inbound consignments was taxable in India. HELD by the AAR:
(i) A “permanent establishment” is something which enables a non-resident to carry on a part of its whole business in a particular country. The Aramex group could not have done business in India without a presence in India. This presence in India can be achieved through an independent entity or through a subsidiary. If the entity is an independent & uncontrolled entity, then there is no PE if the requirements in Article 5(2) of the DTAC are not satisfied. However, if a 100% subsidiary is created for the purpose of attending to the business of the group, the subsidiary must be taken to be a PE of the group in India applying common sense.
(ii) As the subsidiary has a fixed place of business in India and the business of the applicant is carried on through it, the definition in Article 5(1) is satisfied. The subsidiary is also a PE under Article 5(8) because it habitually secures orders in India wholly for the Aramex group and concludes contracts for the group. The exception in Article 5(10) that the fact that a subsidiary carries on business shall not of itself constitute that company a PE of the foreign company does not apply because it is not a case of the subsidiary carrying on “its business” in India but it is a case of the entire group carrying on business in India through the subsidiary. Also, the fact that the agreement refers to the subsidiary as “independent” and “non-exclusive” is not relevant because it is a mere camouflage to screen the fact that the subsidiary is really a PE of the applicant’s group in India.