<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (2) TMI 1233 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211597</link>
    <description>An Indian liaison office that, in substance, identifies customers, negotiates prices, procures and processes orders, follows up payments, and provides sales support is not confined to preparatory or auxiliary activity; it functions as a permanent establishment under Article 5 of the DTAA. The fact that purchase orders are formally placed on the head office and remittances are made there does not change the real character of the Indian activity. Profits attributable to that permanent establishment are taxable in India under Article 7. RBI permission restrictions did not alter the tax consequence because the actual conduct showed commercial activity in India.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 07:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185014" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 1233 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211597</link>
      <description>An Indian liaison office that, in substance, identifies customers, negotiates prices, procures and processes orders, follows up payments, and provides sales support is not confined to preparatory or auxiliary activity; it functions as a permanent establishment under Article 5 of the DTAA. The fact that purchase orders are formally placed on the head office and remittances are made there does not change the real character of the Indian activity. Profits attributable to that permanent establishment are taxable in India under Article 7. RBI permission restrictions did not alter the tax consequence because the actual conduct showed commercial activity in India.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211597</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>