Dependent agent permanent establishment fails where distributor acts independently; software-related payments were not royalty or technical fees.

An Indian distributor acting independently, in its own name and without authority to bind the foreign enterprise, does not constitute a dependent agent permanent establishment under the India-Ireland treaty. On that basis, payments to Google Ireland were not disallowable under section 40(a)(i), and the same receipts were also held not to be royalty or fees for technical services because no copyright or proprietary interest in the software platform was transferred and no managerial, technical or consultancy services were rendered. The books rejection was found unjustified for want of specific defects, while the CSR-linked 80G claim, MAT credit, TDS credit and refund computation were remitted for verification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of the books of account was justified; (ii) Whether the assessee's payments to Google Ireland attracted disallowance under section 40(a)(i) on the footing that Google Ireland had a dependent agent permanent establishment in India; (iii) Whether the same payments could alternatively be characterised as royalty or fees for technical services; (iv) Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80G in respect of CSR-linked donations; (v) Whether the assessee's claim as a representative assessee of Google Ireland survived after the finding on permanent establishment; (vi) Whether the claims relating to MAT credit, TDS credit and incorrect refund calculation required verification.

Issue (i): Whether the rejection of the books of account was justified.

Analysis: The books were rejected without any pointed defect being established in the assessee's accounts. The issue was treated as identical to an earlier year where the same rejection had been held unsustainable. The assessee's disclosure of advertisement revenue on a net basis was consistent with its contractual arrangement and accounting treatment, and no contrary material was brought on record to support a finding of incompleteness or inaccuracy.

Conclusion: The rejection of books of account was held to be unjustified and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee's payments to Google Ireland attracted disallowance under section 40(a)(i) on the footing that Google Ireland had a dependent agent permanent establishment in India.

Analysis: The distributorship arrangement showed that the assessee acted on its own account, in its own name, with no authority to bind Google Ireland. The contractual terms described the relationship as non-exclusive and independent, and the assessee collected consideration from advertisers in its own right. Applying the treaty test for dependent agent permanent establishment, the necessary elements of habitual authority to conclude contracts or equivalent agency indicia were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The assessee was held not to be a dependent agent permanent establishment of Google Ireland, and no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was warranted on that basis.

Issue (iii): Whether the same payments could alternatively be characterised as royalty or fees for technical services.

Analysis: The payments were examined in the light of the India-Ireland treaty and the Supreme Court's software-royalty principles. The assessee received only a restricted right to use the advertising platform for distributorship and service functions; no copyright or other proprietary interest in the underlying software or technology was transferred. The brand features, tools, confidential information and software technology were used only incidentally or as part of the commercial arrangement, and the factual matrix did not disclose rendering of managerial, technical or consultancy services to the assessee. The receipts were thus treated as business receipts in the hands of the non-resident absent a permanent establishment, not as royalty or fees for technical services.

Conclusion: The payments were held not to be royalty and not to be fees for technical services, and no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) survived.

Issue (iv): Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80G in respect of CSR-linked donations.

Analysis: The claim under section 80G was distinct from the disallowance regime for CSR expenditure under section 37(1). Even if the expenditure arose from CSR obligations, the statutory bar under the business-expense provision did not by itself eliminate eligibility for Chapter VI-A deduction, subject to satisfaction of the conditions under section 80G. The authority below had not verified the nature of the donations and the extent of qualifying eligibility.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded for verification and the assessee's claim was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue (v): Whether the assessee's claim as a representative assessee of Google Ireland survived after the finding on permanent establishment.

Analysis: Once it was held that Google Ireland did not have a dependent agent permanent establishment in India, the foundation for taxing its business profits through the assessee as representative assessee disappeared.

Conclusion: The representative-assessee issue was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether the claims relating to MAT credit, TDS credit and incorrect refund calculation required verification.

Analysis: These claims turned on arithmetical and documentary verification of the records already filed. No final factual determination was made on the merits of the figures claimed.

Conclusion: The matters were remanded for verification.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief on the core permanent-establishment, disallowance and representative-assessee controversies, while ancillary credit and refund issues were sent back for verification and the CSR-linked deduction issue was remitted for examination of eligibility.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a foreign enterprise acts through an Indian distributor as an independent contractor without authority to bind the foreign enterprise, and no copyright or proprietary interest in the underlying platform or software is transferred, the resulting payments are neither attributable to a dependent agent permanent establishment nor taxable as royalty or fees for technical services in the hands of the foreign enterprise under the relevant treaty.

---