https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71307 A foreign enterprise is not treated as having a permanent establishment in India merely because it owns subsidiaries or exercises routine supervision over them; the treaty test requires a fixed place of business through which the enterprise's own business is carried on, and that was not shown here. The receipts arose from centralized support services rendered from abroad, while the Indian subsidiaries' employees worked in their own business, so no attribution to a permanent establishment was established. In the absence of such effective connection and attribution, the domestic gross-tax regime under sections 44D and 115A did not apply merely because a permanent establishment was alleged; the receipts remained, if at all, taxable under Article 12 at the treaty rate. en-us Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Dec 2023 17:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71307 A foreign enterprise is not treated as having a permanent establishment in India merely because it owns subsidiaries or exercises routine supervision over them; the treaty test requires a fixed place of business through which the enterprise's own business is carried on, and that was not shown here. The receipts arose from centralized support services rendered from abroad, while the Indian subsidiaries' employees worked in their own business, so no attribution to a permanent establishment was established. In the absence of such effective connection and attribution, the domestic gross-tax regime under sections 44D and 115A did not apply merely because a permanent establishment was alleged; the receipts remained, if at all, taxable under Article 12 at the treaty rate. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71307