“Section 209(1)(d)”
The decision most relied on for Section 209(1)(d) is National Petroleum Construction Company v. DIT (383 ITR 648), cited in 69 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 209(1)(d)
An Indian agent providing marketing services, without the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of a foreign company, does not constitute a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) for the foreign company in India under DTAA provisions.
When contractual obligations are for an entire project, only the income reasonably attributable to operations carried on in India is deemed to accrue or arise in India and falls within the tax net. This principle applies even in consortium arrangements where members have broader contractual roles, and income from supply of equipment should be characterized appropriately.
A non-resident entity's activities in India are assessed for Permanent Establishment (PE) under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements, considering types like fixed place, construction, and agency PE, and the applicability of presumptive taxation under sections such as 44BBB.
Income from offshore supply is not taxable in India if the Permanent Establishment (PE) in India had no role in securing or facilitating that supply. The separate nature of offshore and onshore contracts is relevant to this determination.
The Supreme Court decision in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer clarifies the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, specifically concerning interest income earned by cooperative societies from their investments or deposits, distinguishing between deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d).
Section 44BBB of the Act cannot be applied to income from offshore supplies if the supplies were made outside India without the involvement of a Permanent Establishment in India. Treaty provisions may also preclude such taxation.
The case is authority for the principle that where an Indian entity is given authority to execute local work but overall responsibility remains with a foreign entity, this does not necessarily constitute a consortium, and the foreign entity's liability should be assessed based on the specific contractual terms.