<?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 1570 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467135</link>
    <description>Permanent Establishment and royalty characterisation were the central issues: the Tribunal applied the disposal test and business-activity criteria and found no dispossession or control of premises, no aggregated furnishing of services by the enterprise&#039;s personnel, and no habitual contract-concluding or stock-maintaining agency, concluding that the local subsidiary qualified as an independent agent remunerated at arm&#039;s length and therefore did not create a fixed-place, service or agency PE; consequently no profits were attributable to a PE. On royalty, the Tribunal held that royalty arises only from contractual entitlement and regulatory permission; global-deal transfers did not constitute royalty and the enhanced notional attribution was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2026 15:02:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=889199" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 1570 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467135</link>
      <description>Permanent Establishment and royalty characterisation were the central issues: the Tribunal applied the disposal test and business-activity criteria and found no dispossession or control of premises, no aggregated furnishing of services by the enterprise&#039;s personnel, and no habitual contract-concluding or stock-maintaining agency, concluding that the local subsidiary qualified as an independent agent remunerated at arm&#039;s length and therefore did not create a fixed-place, service or agency PE; consequently no profits were attributable to a PE. On royalty, the Tribunal held that royalty arises only from contractual entitlement and regulatory permission; global-deal transfers did not constitute royalty and the enhanced notional attribution was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467135</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>