<?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>2025 (3) TMI 2116 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470477</link>
    <description>Under the India-Singapore tax treaty, a fixed place or dependent agency permanent establishment requires material showing that Indian premises were at the foreign enterprise&#039;s disposal, or that the Indian entity had authority to conclude contracts or habitually secured orders exclusively for it. The note states that sales-support, installation, warranty, distribution and marketing-support functions did not meet these tests where contracts were concluded from Singapore, employees did not visit India, and inventory was held under principal-to-principal distribution arrangements. It also notes that untested customer-employee statements could not establish a permanent establishment. On these facts, no Indian business profits were attributable to an alleged permanent establishment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2026 19:00:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=914014" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 2116 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470477</link>
      <description>Under the India-Singapore tax treaty, a fixed place or dependent agency permanent establishment requires material showing that Indian premises were at the foreign enterprise&#039;s disposal, or that the Indian entity had authority to conclude contracts or habitually secured orders exclusively for it. The note states that sales-support, installation, warranty, distribution and marketing-support functions did not meet these tests where contracts were concluded from Singapore, employees did not visit India, and inventory was held under principal-to-principal distribution arrangements. It also notes that untested customer-employee statements could not establish a permanent establishment. On these facts, no Indian business profits were attributable to an alleged permanent establishment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470477</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>