Fixed place PE upheld, but DAPE, service PE and royalty claims failed; attribution sent back for recomputation.

Fixed place permanent establishment in India was upheld on the basis of the Indian subsidiary premises, the assessee's supervision and control, and the deployment of personnel and assets. Profits attributable to the alleged PE were not finally quantified and were remitted for recomputation in line with earlier binding directions. No dependent agent permanent establishment or service permanent establishment was found on the facts, and IPLC or link charges were held to be payment for services or reimbursement, not royalty taxable in India. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the assessee's appeal was partly allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee had a fixed place permanent establishment in India. (ii) Whether profits were attributable to the alleged permanent establishment and the attribution methodology required interference. (iii) Whether the assessee had a dependent agent permanent establishment or a service permanent establishment in India. (iv) Whether IPLC or link charges were taxable as royalty in India.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee had a fixed place permanent establishment in India.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its own earlier orders in the assessee's case and applied the principle of consistency. On the facts already examined in prior years, the Indian subsidiary's premises, together with the assessee's supervision, direction and control over the Indian operations and the deployment of personnel and assets, supported the existence of a fixed place permanent establishment.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and the existence of a fixed place permanent establishment in India was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether profits were attributable to the alleged permanent establishment and the attribution methodology required interference.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that attribution had already been dealt with in the assessee's own earlier years and that the methodology adopted by the first appellate authority required the matter to be worked out by applying the directions already laid down in those years. The issue was therefore not finally quantified in this round and was sent back for computation in accordance with the earlier binding directions.

Conclusion: The issue was decided for statistical purposes with directions for recomputation.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessee had a dependent agent permanent establishment or a service permanent establishment in India.

Analysis: The Tribunal again relied on the earlier orders in the assessee's own case and found no distinguishing facts. On that basis, it accepted that the conditions for a dependent agent permanent establishment and a service permanent establishment were not made out.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (iv): Whether IPLC or link charges were taxable as royalty in India.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the earlier view that the payment represented procurement of a service and not a transfer of the right to use equipment or a process. It also accepted that the amount was in the nature of reimbursement and therefore did not fall within royalty under the treaty framework.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and the receipts were held not taxable as royalty in India.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the royalty and PE objections other than the fixed place PE finding, while the attribution issue was remitted for computation in line with earlier directions. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the assessee's appeal was partly allowed.

---