https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356877 The discussion addresses whether tax had to be withheld under section 195 on head office expenses and whether the Indian entity could be treated as an assessee in default under section 201. It notes that, on the facts, no permanent establishment existed when the expenses were said to have been incurred, the accounting entry was only a notional consolidation for project profit computation, and no actual payment or liability arose from the permanent establishment to the head office. It further states that branch or permanent establishment payments to the head office are treated as payments to self and do not attract withholding tax, especially where the amounts are not chargeable in India and are not fees for technical services or royalty, with treaty non-discrimination also referred to. en-us Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Mar 2018 06:51:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356877 The discussion addresses whether tax had to be withheld under section 195 on head office expenses and whether the Indian entity could be treated as an assessee in default under section 201. It notes that, on the facts, no permanent establishment existed when the expenses were said to have been incurred, the accounting entry was only a notional consolidation for project profit computation, and no actual payment or liability arose from the permanent establishment to the head office. It further states that branch or permanent establishment payments to the head office are treated as payments to self and do not attract withholding tax, especially where the amounts are not chargeable in India and are not fees for technical services or royalty, with treaty non-discrimination also referred to. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356877