https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213974 A liaison office in India will not constitute a permanent establishment under Article 5 of the India-Japan DTAA where its activities remain confined to preparatory or auxiliary functions and there is no positive evidence of substantive business operations. The Tribunal noted that RBI approval, ongoing compliance, and the absence of material showing violation of permitted liaison activities supported the inference that the office operated within its authorised scope. Revenue's reliance on selective correspondence was insufficient to establish that price negotiation or contract formation was in fact carried on through the office. The presumption arising from RBI approval was therefore not rebutted, and the liaison office was not treated as a permanent establishment in India. en-us Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213974 A liaison office in India will not constitute a permanent establishment under Article 5 of the India-Japan DTAA where its activities remain confined to preparatory or auxiliary functions and there is no positive evidence of substantive business operations. The Tribunal noted that RBI approval, ongoing compliance, and the absence of material showing violation of permitted liaison activities supported the inference that the office operated within its authorised scope. Revenue's reliance on selective correspondence was insufficient to establish that price negotiation or contract formation was in fact carried on through the office. The presumption arising from RBI approval was therefore not rebutted, and the liaison office was not treated as a permanent establishment in India. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213974