Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
This case deals with the accrual of income in India from exploration activities and the determination of whether the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under the India-Singapore DTAA. The key points are: The Assessing Officer treated the gross receipts attributed to the PE as deemed profits u/s 44BB and made an addition. The assessee contended that its operations were less than 183 days, covered under Article 5(5) of the DTAA, a special clause for exploration activities, rather than Article 5(1), the general PE clause. The Tribunal held that for specific activities defined in Article 5(5), the minimum period test of 183 days must be applied, and this specific activity-based article prevails over the general rule of Article 5(1). Since the assessee's activities were for less than 183 days, it did not have a PE in India under Article 5(5). Article 5(3) is an exception to Articles 5(1) and 5(2) and prevails as a specific provision. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's appeal and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
This case deals with the accrual of income in India from exploration activities and the determination of whether the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under the India-Singapore DTAA. The key points are: The Assessing Officer treated the gross receipts attributed to the PE as deemed profits u/s 44BB and made an addition. The assessee contended that its operations were less than 183 days, covered under Article 5(5) of the DTAA, a special clause for exploration activities, rather than Article 5(1), the general PE clause. The Tribunal held that for specific activities defined in Article 5(5), the minimum period test of 183 days must be applied, and this specific activity-based article prevails over the general rule of Article 5(1). Since the assessee's activities were for less than 183 days, it did not have a PE in India under Article 5(5). Article 5(3) is an exception to Articles 5(1) and 5(2) and prevails as a specific provision. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's appeal and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
