<?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>2013 (11) TMI 195 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239018</link>
    <description>Dealer&#039;s commission relating to earlier years was deductible only if the liability had accrued and crystallised in the relevant year; where the expenditure matched earlier sales and no contractual basis showed deferred accrual, the liability was not treated as crystallised. On permanent establishment, the Indian branch was described as an independent contractor performing liaison, marketing support and post-sale functions without authority to conclude contracts, stock holding or entrepreneurial risk, so dependent agent PE conditions were not met. In the absence of a PE, the force of attraction rule was inapplicable and additional profit attribution to India was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 11:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334389" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 195 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239018</link>
      <description>Dealer&#039;s commission relating to earlier years was deductible only if the liability had accrued and crystallised in the relevant year; where the expenditure matched earlier sales and no contractual basis showed deferred accrual, the liability was not treated as crystallised. On permanent establishment, the Indian branch was described as an independent contractor performing liaison, marketing support and post-sale functions without authority to conclude contracts, stock holding or entrepreneurial risk, so dependent agent PE conditions were not met. In the absence of a PE, the force of attraction rule was inapplicable and additional profit attribution to India was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239018</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>