<?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>2020 (4) TMI 794 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394887</link>
    <description>Treaty protection prevails where liaison offices in India perform only preparatory or auxiliary support functions within the limits of regulatory permission. Under Article 5 of the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, a fixed place of business becomes a permanent establishment only if it carries on core business activity, while a place maintained solely for preparatory or auxiliary work is excluded. The liaison offices were confined to support tasks for remittance operations and had no authority to undertake trading or earn commission in India, so they did not constitute a permanent establishment. As the activities were merely ancillary to contracts concluded abroad, the deeming rules on accrual and business connection under the Income-tax Act did not by themselves create Indian tax liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 10:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=611468" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (4) TMI 794 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394887</link>
      <description>Treaty protection prevails where liaison offices in India perform only preparatory or auxiliary support functions within the limits of regulatory permission. Under Article 5 of the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, a fixed place of business becomes a permanent establishment only if it carries on core business activity, while a place maintained solely for preparatory or auxiliary work is excluded. The liaison offices were confined to support tasks for remittance operations and had no authority to undertake trading or earn commission in India, so they did not constitute a permanent establishment. As the activities were merely ancillary to contracts concluded abroad, the deeming rules on accrual and business connection under the Income-tax Act did not by themselves create Indian tax liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394887</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>