<?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 (8) TMI 1108 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797234</link>
    <description>Service permanent establishment requires proof that personnel furnished qualifying services in India beyond auxiliary functions and outside treaty exclusions for technical or consultancy services. Oversight, training, administrative support, news-gathering assistance and product-sales support did not establish such a presence where the activities were auxiliary or potentially excluded. A subsidiary was not a dependent agent permanent establishment because it independently contracted with customers, invoiced them and assumed contractual responsibilities on a principal-to-principal basis; parental controls and exclusive distribution did not alter that character. Arm&#039;s-length transfer-pricing acceptance further supported no additional profit attribution. No taxable profit was assessable in India on a permanent-establishment basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2026 08:20:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=917733" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 1108 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797234</link>
      <description>Service permanent establishment requires proof that personnel furnished qualifying services in India beyond auxiliary functions and outside treaty exclusions for technical or consultancy services. Oversight, training, administrative support, news-gathering assistance and product-sales support did not establish such a presence where the activities were auxiliary or potentially excluded. A subsidiary was not a dependent agent permanent establishment because it independently contracted with customers, invoiced them and assumed contractual responsibilities on a principal-to-principal basis; parental controls and exclusive distribution did not alter that character. Arm&#039;s-length transfer-pricing acceptance further supported no additional profit attribution. No taxable profit was assessable in India on a permanent-establishment basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797234</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>