TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the proposed liaison office would result in any income accruing or arising to the applicant in India under the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the applicant would have a business connection in India by reason of setting up the liaison office; (iii) Whether the applicant, being resident in UAE, could claim the benefit of the India-UAE DTAA.
Issue (i): Whether the proposed liaison office would result in any income accruing or arising to the applicant in India under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The proposed liaison office was confined to holding seminars and shows, transmitting information, receiving trade enquiries and forwarding them to Dubai or the principal company, and collecting feedback. It was expressly prohibited from concluding contracts, procuring orders or collecting payments. On that footing, the office was only a communication channel and not an income-generating operational base. Since the activities did not themselves produce income in India, no accrual or deemed accrual of income through the liaison office was established.
Conclusion: No income would accrue or arise to the applicant in India through the proposed liaison office.
Issue (ii): Whether the applicant would have a business connection in India by reason of setting up the liaison office.
Analysis: For a business connection, there must be a real and intimate relation between the non-resident's foreign trading activity and the activity in India, together with continuity of dealing that contributes to earning income. The statutory Explanation to section 9(1)(i) also contemplates business activity carried out in India through a person who concludes contracts, maintains stock, or habitually secures orders. The liaison office here did none of these and was restricted to liaison work only. As long as it did not enter negotiations or secure orders in India, the necessary nexus for business connection was absent.
Conclusion: The applicant would not be having a business connection in India by virtue of the proposed liaison office.
Issue (iii): Whether the applicant, being resident in UAE, could claim the benefit of the India-UAE DTAA.
Analysis: The ruling treated the question as covered by the earlier authority holding that an individual based in UAE, where no tax regime for individuals existed, did not satisfy the treaty concept of a resident of a contracting state for the relevant benefit claim. On that basis, treaty protection was denied.
Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to claim the benefit of the India-UAE DTAA.
Final Conclusion: The proposed liaison office was held to be non-income yielding and non-constitutive of a business connection in India, while treaty benefit under the India-UAE DTAA was not available on the facts found.
Ratio Decidendi: A liaison office confined to communication, information exchange, and feedback functions, without authority to conclude contracts, procure orders, or negotiate sales, does not by itself create a business connection in India or give rise to income accruing or deemed to accrue in India.
TaxTMI 
