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 assessee had a fixed place permanent establishment and a dependent agent permanent establishment in India under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Article 5 of the India-Singapore DTAA; (ii) Whether the profits attributable to the Indian permanent establishment were correctly computed and whether the matter required reconsideration.
Issue (i): Whether the assessee had a fixed place permanent establishment and a dependent agent permanent establishment in India under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Article 5 of the India-Singapore DTAA.
Analysis: The record showed that the Indian "Dollar Team" carried out the substantive business functions of the foreign enterprise in India, including customer engagement, negotiation, order processing, pricing-related interaction, payment follow-up, and related sales operations, while the Singapore office mainly handled shipment and logistical documentation. The premise from which those functions were carried out was treated as being at the disposal of the foreign enterprise in substance, and the same set of employees was found to habitually act on behalf of the foreign entity in concluding and securing business. On that factual foundation, the legal ingredients of both a fixed place permanent establishment and a dependent agent permanent establishment were held to be satisfied.
Conclusion: The existence of a fixed place permanent establishment and a dependent agent permanent establishment in India was upheld against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the profits attributable to the Indian permanent establishment were correctly computed and whether the matter required reconsideration.
Analysis: The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had proceeded on unaudited figures and had not correctly applied the profit base of the foreign entity's own books. It held that attribution had to be made from the profits of the foreign enterprise and not by applying the Indian entity's margin. It also noted that the assessee disputed the inclusion of non-Indian sales and royalty receipts and that the computation required fresh examination in light of the DRP's directions and the correct legal approach to attribution.
Conclusion: The profit attribution exercise was set aside for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded only on the attribution aspect, while the finding of permanent establishment in India was sustained; the appeal was disposed of by granting limited relief on computation and leaving the PE finding undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the substantive business operations of a foreign enterprise are carried on in India through locally based personnel from premises effectively used for that business, a permanent establishment may be constituted, and profit attribution must be computed from the foreign enterprise's own profits on a legally sustainable basis.
TaxTMI 
