<?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>Assessee in reinsurance not a permanent establishment in India under MLI Article 5; income not taxable here</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90372</link>
    <description>The ITAT held that the assessee, engaged in reinsurance, does not constitute a permanent establishment (PE) in India under the modified Article 5 of the MLI between India and Ireland. Despite the revenue&#039;s contention that the assessee and a related enterprise carried out complementary functions amounting to a cohesive business operation in India, the tribunal found no business activities or presence in India, including no premises or acceptance of risk within India. Consequently, the anti-fragmentation rule under the MLI, designed to prevent abuse of preparatory or auxiliary activity exemptions, was inapplicable. The tribunal concluded that the assessee&#039;s income was not taxable in India due to the absence of a PE, ruling in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2025 08:39:54 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2025 08:39:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=835300" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Assessee in reinsurance not a permanent establishment in India under MLI Article 5; income not taxable here</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90372</link>
      <description>The ITAT held that the assessee, engaged in reinsurance, does not constitute a permanent establishment (PE) in India under the modified Article 5 of the MLI between India and Ireland. Despite the revenue&#039;s contention that the assessee and a related enterprise carried out complementary functions amounting to a cohesive business operation in India, the tribunal found no business activities or presence in India, including no premises or acceptance of risk within India. Consequently, the anti-fragmentation rule under the MLI, designed to prevent abuse of preparatory or auxiliary activity exemptions, was inapplicable. The tribunal concluded that the assessee&#039;s income was not taxable in India due to the absence of a PE, ruling in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2025 08:39:54 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90372</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>