https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773517 A dependent agent permanent establishment under Article 5(4) of the India-USA DTAA requires cogent evidence that the Indian entity habitually concludes contracts, secures orders, or otherwise acts as a real agent of the foreign enterprise; mere marketing support and back-end services on a principal-to-principal basis are insufficient. On the recorded agreements and facts, the Indian subsidiary had no authority to conclude contracts, did not maintain stock, and did not habitually secure orders, so the Revenue failed to discharge its initial burden to prove a PE. As the PE was not established, attribution of Indian business profits could not stand, and the consequential equalisation levy objection also fell away. en-us Wed, 18 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Jan 2026 18:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773517 A dependent agent permanent establishment under Article 5(4) of the India-USA DTAA requires cogent evidence that the Indian entity habitually concludes contracts, secures orders, or otherwise acts as a real agent of the foreign enterprise; mere marketing support and back-end services on a principal-to-principal basis are insufficient. On the recorded agreements and facts, the Indian subsidiary had no authority to conclude contracts, did not maintain stock, and did not habitually secure orders, so the Revenue failed to discharge its initial burden to prove a PE. As the PE was not established, attribution of Indian business profits could not stand, and the consequential equalisation levy objection also fell away. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 18 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773517