TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the petitioner's Noida/Varanasi establishment constituted a fixed place permanent establishment under Article 5 of the India-USA DTAA; (ii) whether a service permanent establishment or dependent agent permanent establishment existed; and (iii) whether the reassessment notices under Section 148 and the transfer of PAN jurisdiction were sustainable.
Issue (i): whether the petitioner's Noida/Varanasi establishment constituted a fixed place permanent establishment under Article 5 of the India-USA DTAA.
Analysis: A fixed place permanent establishment requires a place of business at the disposal and under the control of the foreign enterprise, through which its core business is carried on. The material relied upon by the revenue did not show that any identifiable part of the Noida or Varanasi premises was exclusively or substantially placed at the petitioner's disposal. The activities attributed to the Indian subsidiary were largely supportive, collaborative, and connected with tender handling, communication, information flow, and coordination. Those functions did not amount to the carrying on of the petitioner's core manufacturing business in India, nor did they establish a virtual projection or complete takeover of the premises for the petitioner's business.
Conclusion: No fixed place permanent establishment was established; the finding was against the revenue and in favour of the petitioner.
Issue (ii): whether a service permanent establishment or dependent agent permanent establishment existed.
Analysis: A service permanent establishment required services to be rendered by the foreign enterprise for a related enterprise, which was not the case on the record. The occasional visits of the petitioner's personnel and managerial oversight did not amount to furnishing of services. As to dependent agent permanent establishment, there was no prima facie material showing conferral of authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the petitioner or habitual exercise of such authority. The subsidiary's functions were not shown to be wholly or almost wholly devoted to the petitioner, and the relationship disclosed independent business activity by both entities.
Conclusion: Neither a service permanent establishment nor a dependent agent permanent establishment was made out; the finding was against the revenue and in favour of the petitioner.
Issue (iii): whether the reassessment notices under Section 148 and the transfer of PAN jurisdiction were sustainable.
Analysis: The reassessment foundation depended entirely on the assumption that a permanent establishment existed within the territorial jurisdiction of the first respondent. Once that assumption failed, the jurisdictional basis for the notices collapsed. The transfer of PAN jurisdiction had been effected only to facilitate the reassessment exercise and could not survive once the reassessment basis was found unsustainable.
Conclusion: The impugned reassessment notices and the PAN transfer order were quashed; the result was in favour of the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The impugned assumption of jurisdiction could not be sustained because the revenue failed to establish any permanent establishment of the petitioner in India on the material relied upon, and the reassessment proceedings were therefore set aside.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
