https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361791 AAR analysed the India-Singapore DTAA and held that multiple Indian presence factors created a fixed place PE, including MIPs, the MasterCard network, Bank of India premises, and the Indian subsidiary's functions and risks; the Applicant's visiting employees and Bank of India staff did not create a service PE, but the subsidiary constituted a dependent agent PE by habitually securing orders. It further held that arm's length remuneration to the subsidiary does not bar additional attribution of global profits where the FAR profile is incomplete. On payments from Indian customers, part of the fees was characterised as royalty because intellectual property licensing was the dominant purpose, while the services were not FTS as they did not make available technical knowledge. Tax withholding was required on income attributed to the PE at the applicable non-resident rate. en-us Wed, 06 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Aug 2018 17:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361791 AAR analysed the India-Singapore DTAA and held that multiple Indian presence factors created a fixed place PE, including MIPs, the MasterCard network, Bank of India premises, and the Indian subsidiary's functions and risks; the Applicant's visiting employees and Bank of India staff did not create a service PE, but the subsidiary constituted a dependent agent PE by habitually securing orders. It further held that arm's length remuneration to the subsidiary does not bar additional attribution of global profits where the FAR profile is incomplete. On payments from Indian customers, part of the fees was characterised as royalty because intellectual property licensing was the dominant purpose, while the services were not FTS as they did not make available technical knowledge. Tax withholding was required on income attributed to the PE at the applicable non-resident rate. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361791