https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255957 The Tribunal held that the assessee had a fixed place permanent establishment in India because its employees frequently visited the Indian premises, exercised supervision and control, and had a place of business at their disposal; the preparatory or auxiliary activity exclusion was rejected. For profit attribution, it applied its earlier methodology and transfer pricing principles, directing verification of residual profits after considering arm's length Indian revenue and the Indian associated enterprise's results. IPLC or link charges were not royalty because the payer obtained only a communication service, with no right to use the underlying equipment or network, so the addition was deleted. Interest under section 234B was upheld as mandatory where advance tax default was established. en-us Wed, 28 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Jan 2015 14:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255957 The Tribunal held that the assessee had a fixed place permanent establishment in India because its employees frequently visited the Indian premises, exercised supervision and control, and had a place of business at their disposal; the preparatory or auxiliary activity exclusion was rejected. For profit attribution, it applied its earlier methodology and transfer pricing principles, directing verification of residual profits after considering arm's length Indian revenue and the Indian associated enterprise's results. IPLC or link charges were not royalty because the payer obtained only a communication service, with no right to use the underlying equipment or network, so the addition was deleted. Interest under section 234B was upheld as mandatory where advance tax default was established. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 28 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255957