https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211027 A foreign enterprise was held not to have a permanent establishment in India under Article 5 of the India-US DTAA because its Indian agents worked from their own or hired premises, the liaison offices performed only preparatory or auxiliary functions, software access did not create control over premises, and the agents lacked authority to conclude contracts. The Tribunal also held that the enterprise had a business connection in India under Section 9(1) because its cross-border money transfer operations created continuity and nexus with India, but profit attribution on a PE basis failed since no PE existed. Interest under Section 234B was treated as consequential. en-us Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 May 2012 12:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211027 A foreign enterprise was held not to have a permanent establishment in India under Article 5 of the India-US DTAA because its Indian agents worked from their own or hired premises, the liaison offices performed only preparatory or auxiliary functions, software access did not create control over premises, and the agents lacked authority to conclude contracts. The Tribunal also held that the enterprise had a business connection in India under Section 9(1) because its cross-border money transfer operations created continuity and nexus with India, but profit attribution on a PE basis failed since no PE existed. Interest under Section 234B was treated as consequential. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211027