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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee had a Permanent Establishment in India, either as a fixed place PE or as a dependent agent PE, under Article 5 of the India-Singapore DTAA.
Analysis: The Revenue's conclusion rested mainly on clauses in the agreements with the Indian entity and statements of two employees of an Indian customer. The agreements showed that the Indian entity was appointed as a non-exclusive distributor and service provider, with no authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the assessee, while the marketing support arrangement also described it as an independent contractor without contractual authority. The direct sales to Indian customers were made from Singapore, and the assessee had no employees visiting India. The statements relied upon by the Assessing Officer were not confronted to the assessee and no cross-examination was afforded. On these facts, the premises of the Indian entity could not be treated as the assessee's fixed place of business, and the conditions for a dependent agent PE were also not met. The burden to prove existence of PE remained on the Revenue and was not discharged.
Conclusion: The assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment in India.