https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442965 A foreign enterprise is not treated as having a fixed place permanent establishment in India merely because it operates through an Indian subsidiary. Separate supervision contracts, distinct scopes of work, and the absence of evidence that the foreign enterprise used the subsidiary's premises to perform its own core services defeated the PE allegation under Article 5 of the India-Germany DTAA. Without a permanent establishment, the supervision-service income was not taxable in India as business profits under Article 7. The existence of a subsidiary and common industry line, without more, was insufficient to establish treaty-based taxability. en-us Thu, 20 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Sep 2023 08:59:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442965 A foreign enterprise is not treated as having a fixed place permanent establishment in India merely because it operates through an Indian subsidiary. Separate supervision contracts, distinct scopes of work, and the absence of evidence that the foreign enterprise used the subsidiary's premises to perform its own core services defeated the PE allegation under Article 5 of the India-Germany DTAA. Without a permanent establishment, the supervision-service income was not taxable in India as business profits under Article 7. The existence of a subsidiary and common industry line, without more, was insufficient to establish treaty-based taxability. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 20 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442965