Liaison office status and treaty protection: offshore supply income and interest were kept outside higher Indian tax exposure.

A Mumbai office that performs liaison functions and does not carry on core income-generating activities is treated as a liaison office, not a permanent establishment, so treaty attribution rules do not create Indian tax nexus. On that basis, receipts from offshore supply under divisible contracts were not taxable in India because they lacked connection with any Indian permanent establishment. Interest on delayed payment from the associated enterprise was characterised as debt-claim income under the treaty, and where no permanent establishment existed in India, the treaty's beneficial rate applied instead of the higher domestic rate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee's Mumbai office was a Permanent Establishment or merely a Liaison Office; (ii) whether receipts from offshore supply and claimed fees for technical services were taxable in India; (iii) whether interest income on delayed payment from the associated enterprise was taxable at the maximum marginal rate under the DTAA.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee's Mumbai office was a Permanent Establishment or merely a Liaison Office.

Analysis: The dispute was controlled by the earlier decision in the assessee's own case, where the Bombay office was held not to constitute a Permanent Establishment in view of the relevant treaty provision. Following that binding view and the principle of consistency, the office at Mumbai was treated as a liaison office and not as a taxable permanent establishment.

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

Issue (ii): Whether receipts from offshore supply and claimed fees for technical services were taxable in India.

Analysis: The contracts were treated as divisible, and the income relatable to supplies made outside India was held to have no nexus with any permanent establishment in India. In the absence of a contrary precedent, the receipts from offshore supplies were not brought to tax in India. The ground relating to fees for technical services for one year was also not entertained because it did not arise from the impugned appellate order, while the similar revenue grounds on outside-India revenue were rejected on merits as not warranting interference.

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

Issue (iii): Whether interest income on delayed payment from the associated enterprise was taxable at the maximum marginal rate under the DTAA.

Analysis: The interest income was treated as debt-claim income under the treaty. Since the assessee did not have a permanent establishment in India, the exclusionary clause under the treaty did not apply, and the beneficial treaty rate was held applicable instead of the higher domestic rate.

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

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenges failed on the core substantive issues, and the assessments were not sustained to the extent contested in these appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: A liaison office that does not carry on the core income-generating functions of the foreign enterprise is not a Permanent Establishment, and income from offshore supplies lacking nexus with such establishment is not taxable in India; treaty benefits prevail where the exclusionary provision is inapplicable because no Permanent Establishment exists.

---