<?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>2026 (1) TMI 1206 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785450</link>
    <description>Challenge to issuance and validity of a certificate for deduction of tax at source under Section 197, and whether a foreign company is resident in India or has a permanent establishment. The court applied the management and control test to conclude that grant of a power of attorney to an India resident and filing of forms by that agent does not render a foreign-incorporated company resident in India; consequence: residence and PE were not established on the record. The competent officer was held to have failed in statutory duty by ignoring binding precedents and exercising purported discretion improperly; consequence: the impugned order directing a non-nil withholding rate was quashed and the petition allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2026 09:10:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=880790" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 1206 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785450</link>
      <description>Challenge to issuance and validity of a certificate for deduction of tax at source under Section 197, and whether a foreign company is resident in India or has a permanent establishment. The court applied the management and control test to conclude that grant of a power of attorney to an India resident and filing of forms by that agent does not render a foreign-incorporated company resident in India; consequence: residence and PE were not established on the record. The competent officer was held to have failed in statutory duty by ignoring binding precedents and exercising purported discretion improperly; consequence: the impugned order directing a non-nil withholding rate was quashed and the petition allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785450</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>