<?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>2019 (7) TMI 859 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383163</link>
    <description>A foreign tax resident carrying on diamond grading services through an Indian subsidiary was found not to have a permanent establishment in India under Article 5 of the India-USA DTAA. The subsidiary acted independently, contracted with customers on its own account, bore commercial risks, and used the foreign enterprise only for subcontracted work, so no fixed place PE arose from corporate association alone. No service PE existed because the foreign enterprise&#039;s personnel did not render services in India through employees or other personnel. No agency PE was made out, as the subsidiary had no authority to conclude contracts, did not habitually secure orders, and operated in the ordinary course of its own business.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2019 16:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=579823" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 859 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383163</link>
      <description>A foreign tax resident carrying on diamond grading services through an Indian subsidiary was found not to have a permanent establishment in India under Article 5 of the India-USA DTAA. The subsidiary acted independently, contracted with customers on its own account, bore commercial risks, and used the foreign enterprise only for subcontracted work, so no fixed place PE arose from corporate association alone. No service PE existed because the foreign enterprise&#039;s personnel did not render services in India through employees or other personnel. No agency PE was made out, as the subsidiary had no authority to conclude contracts, did not habitually secure orders, and operated in the ordinary course of its own business.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383163</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>