Permanent establishment and royalty analysis: Indian attribution failed, IPLC charges were treated as service payments, and MAP was not binding later.

Permanent establishment requires proof that premises are at the foreign enterprise's disposal, that services are furnished within India, or that an Indian affiliate habitually has authority to conclude contracts; absent such evidence, no business profits are attributable in India. Link or IPLC charges were treated as payment for communication services, not royalty, because the payer obtained no possession, control, or legally significant right to use equipment. The earlier Mutual Agreement Procedure determination was treated as concluded in 2017 and was not applied as binding for assessment year 2022-23. The discussion notes relief on the permanent establishment, attribution, and MAP issues, while the royalty issue was decided against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the foreign enterprise had a fixed place permanent establishment, service permanent establishment, or dependent agent permanent establishment in India, and whether profits were attributable to such alleged permanent establishment. (ii) Whether link charges or IPLC charges received by the foreign enterprise were taxable as royalty. (iii) Whether the Mutual Agreement Procedure determination continued to bind the assessment year 2022-23.

Issue (i): Whether the foreign enterprise had a fixed place permanent establishment, service permanent establishment, or dependent agent permanent establishment in India, and whether profits were attributable to such alleged permanent establishment.

Analysis: The issue was examined in the light of the settled principles governing permanent establishment, including the requirement of a place being at the disposal of the foreign enterprise for a fixed place permanent establishment, the statutory requirement that services must be furnished within India for a service permanent establishment, and the necessity of authority to conclude contracts or satisfy the agency conditions for a dependent agent permanent establishment. The Revenue did not establish that the Indian affiliate or its premises were at the disposal of the foreign enterprise, nor that the foreign enterprise furnished services within India through personnel in the relevant sense, nor that the Indian affiliate habitually exercised authority to conclude contracts or otherwise satisfied the agency tests. In the absence of a permanent establishment, no business profits could be attributed in India.

Conclusion: The foreign enterprise did not have a fixed place permanent establishment, a service permanent establishment, or a dependent agent permanent establishment in India, and the attribution made on that basis was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether link charges or IPLC charges received by the foreign enterprise were taxable as royalty.

Analysis: The payment was tested on the touchstone of the right to use equipment and the degree of possession or control over the communication facility. The Tribunal found that the recipient of the payment did not obtain possession, control, or a legally significant right to use any equipment, and the charges were only for availing a communication service. The Revenue also failed to dislodge the earlier factual and legal findings that the payment was in the nature of reimbursement and did not fit within the royalty definition under the treaty.

Conclusion: The link charges or IPLC charges were not taxable as royalty, and the issue was decided against the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether the Mutual Agreement Procedure determination continued to bind the assessment year 2022-23.

Analysis: The Tribunal treated the earlier MAP determination as concluded in 2017 and examined whether it could govern the later assessment year. On that footing, the earlier arrangement was not regarded as binding for the subsequent year in question, and the assessee's challenge on this aspect succeeded.

Conclusion: The Mutual Agreement Procedure determination was held non-binding for assessment year 2022-23, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by granting the assessee relief on the permanent establishment, attribution, and MAP issues, while sustaining the Revenue's grievance only on the royalty question.

Ratio Decidendi: A permanent establishment cannot be inferred without proof of disposal, statutory service presence, or agency authority; where only service is availed without a right to use equipment, communication charges do not become royalty under the treaty.

---