<?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 (9) TMI 810 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386042</link>
    <description>A foreign enterprise&#039;s Indian liaison office was examined for permanent establishment status under the India-Singapore treaty, with the evidence showing core commercial functions such as marketing, sales promotion, order follow-up, deliveries and collections rather than merely preparatory or auxiliary work. On that basis, the office was treated as a permanent establishment and profits attributable to Indian operations had to be computed on a realistic, function-based method; the note identifies TNMM as the appropriate approach and rejects excessive attribution based on unsuitable comparables. It also records that interest under section 234B was not leviable where the assessee was a non-resident and tax was deductible at source under section 195. The remand issue is noted as not permitting the assessee to be placed in a worse position than in the first round.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2019 15:43:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=588100" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 810 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386042</link>
      <description>A foreign enterprise&#039;s Indian liaison office was examined for permanent establishment status under the India-Singapore treaty, with the evidence showing core commercial functions such as marketing, sales promotion, order follow-up, deliveries and collections rather than merely preparatory or auxiliary work. On that basis, the office was treated as a permanent establishment and profits attributable to Indian operations had to be computed on a realistic, function-based method; the note identifies TNMM as the appropriate approach and rejects excessive attribution based on unsuitable comparables. It also records that interest under section 234B was not leviable where the assessee was a non-resident and tax was deductible at source under section 195. The remand issue is noted as not permitting the assessee to be placed in a worse position than in the first round.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386042</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>