Dependent agent permanent establishment and profit attribution depend on functions actually performed, not just arm's length commission.

A foreign enterprise may have a dependent agent permanent establishment in India where the Indian subsidiary habitually identifies customers, negotiates commercial terms, secures orders and effectively concludes contracts on its behalf. Arm's length remuneration to the subsidiary does not by itself bar further profit attribution if the transfer pricing exercise does not capture all functions performed and risks assumed in India. Profit attribution must be based on a rational estimate of net profit related to Indian sales, after reducing income already taxed in the subsidiary's hands; if the record is insufficient, recomputation is required. For a non-resident whose income is subject to tax deduction at source, interest under section 234B is not leviable on the footing of payer default.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Indian subsidiary constituted a dependent agent permanent establishment of the non-resident assessee in India; (ii) whether further attribution of profits to the permanent establishment was barred because the commission payment to the subsidiary was accepted at arm's length; (iii) what should be the proper method and quantum of attribution of profits to the permanent establishment; and (iv) whether interest under section 234B was chargeable.

Issue (i): Whether the Indian subsidiary constituted a dependent agent permanent establishment of the non-resident assessee in India.

Analysis: The Agreement and the contemporaneous correspondence showed that the Indian entity did more than merely forward requests and quotations. The evidence indicated that it was identifying customers, negotiating prices and commercial terms, securing orders and finalising deals in India for the assessee, while the assessee failed to produce reliable direct correspondence with Indian customers to show that such functions were carried out from Japan. On the facts, the activities satisfied the treaty test of a dependent agent acting on behalf of the foreign enterprise.

Conclusion: The dependent agent permanent establishment was rightly upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether further attribution of profits to the permanent establishment was barred because the commission payment to the subsidiary was accepted at arm's length.

Analysis: The arm's length determination in the subsidiary's hands covered only the functions expressly disclosed in the Agreement, namely forwarding customer requests and quotations. The material functions actually performed in India, including negotiation and conclusion of contracts, were outside that benchmarking exercise. Where the transfer pricing analysis does not adequately reflect all functions performed and risks assumed, further attribution remains permissible.

Conclusion: The plea that no further attribution could be made merely because the commission was accepted at arm's length was rejected.

Issue (iii): What should be the proper method and quantum of attribution of profits to the permanent establishment.

Analysis: The assessment method adopted by the Assessing Officer was found to be unsatisfactory. The Court held that attribution had to be made on a rational estimate of net profit relatable to Indian sales and then reduced by the income already taxed in the subsidiary's hands. As the record did not contain sufficient data to compute the exact amount, the matter had to go back to the Assessing Officer for fresh quantification in accordance with the indicated approach.

Conclusion: The quantum of attribution was set aside and remitted for recomputation.

Issue (iv): Whether interest under section 234B was chargeable.

Analysis: The assessee was a non-resident and its income was liable to tax deduction at source. For the assessment year involved, the later proviso to section 209(1) did not apply. On that footing, failure of the payer to deduct tax at source could not fasten advance-tax interest on the assessee.

Conclusion: Interest under section 234B was not leviable against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was only partly successful: the permanent establishment finding was sustained, the attribution issue was sent back for fresh computation, and the levy of interest under section 234B was deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign enterprise has a dependent agent permanent establishment where the Indian agent habitually secures orders or effectively concludes contracts on its behalf, and an arm's length remuneration to the agent does not preclude further profit attribution if the transfer pricing analysis fails to capture all functions actually performed in India.

---