<?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>1996 (2) TMI 560 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181428</link>
    <description>A continuous and systematic role performed in India by a subsidiary in relation to a non-resident&#039;s tender-related and contract-signing activities can create a business connection under section 9(1)(i). The arrangement here went beyond isolated or preparatory functions because the subsidiary handled tender information, submission, follow-up, negotiation within set parameters, documentation, and contract execution on the applicant&#039;s behalf. On the assumed facts, those activities were sufficient to establish a permanent establishment under article 5 of the treaty, and the subsidiary&#039;s authority-and-contract functions meant articles 5.5 and 5.6 did not protect the applicant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2016 16:25:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=424096" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 560 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181428</link>
      <description>A continuous and systematic role performed in India by a subsidiary in relation to a non-resident&#039;s tender-related and contract-signing activities can create a business connection under section 9(1)(i). The arrangement here went beyond isolated or preparatory functions because the subsidiary handled tender information, submission, follow-up, negotiation within set parameters, documentation, and contract execution on the applicant&#039;s behalf. On the assumed facts, those activities were sufficient to establish a permanent establishment under article 5 of the treaty, and the subsidiary&#039;s authority-and-contract functions meant articles 5.5 and 5.6 did not protect the applicant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>