← All Phrases

“permanent establishment”

International TaxSection 9 / DTAA Article 5Section 9 / DTAA Article 51,497 judgments

The decision most relied on for permanent establishment is DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co. (292 ITR 416), cited in 360 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on permanent establishment

DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co.
292 ITR 416 · 2007 · Supreme Court
360
citing judgments

A Permanent Establishment (PE) signifies a foreign enterprise's virtual projection into another country, with a fixed place PE existing where an MNE's business is wholly or partly carried on. A dependent agent PE requires the agent to act as such and/or have the authority to conclude contracts for the foreign enterprise under DTAA provisions.

DIT v. Nokia Networks OY
358 ITR 259 · 2013 · High Court
276
citing judgments

Payments for the supply of software along with telecom equipment are not in the nature of royalty if they are for the use of a copyrighted article, not the copyright itself. Such payments are not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE).

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.
39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

ONGC v. CIT
376 ITR 306 · 2015 · Supreme Court
241
citing judgments

Income derived by a non-resident for services related to mineral oil operations, falling under the presumptive taxation regime of Section 44BB, cannot simultaneously be treated as fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii). The specific presumptive provisions override the general FTS definition, particularly when DTAA applies.

Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT
95 ITD 269 · 2005 · High Court
213
citing judgments

Revenue must demonstrate the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) of a foreign enterprise in India, including establishing that transactions underlying a Dependent Agent PE were not at arm's length. Income from the sale of goods is not taxable in India if title and risk in the goods pass outside India.

(i) Formula One World Championship Ltd. v. CIT
394 ITR 80 · 2017 · Supreme Court
200
citing judgments

This case provides foundational principles that illuminate the contours of the concept of 'Permanent Establishment' (PE) under tax treaties, especially regarding a 'fixed place' PE.

DIT v. Morgan Stanley Co. Inc.
399 ITR 34 · 2017 · Supreme Court
162
citing judgments

Once a transfer pricing analysis has been undertaken for an Indian associated enterprise, no further profits are attributable to it as a Permanent Establishment, thereby extinguishing the need for additional profit attribution.

Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT
24 ITR 506 · 1953 · Supreme Court
156
citing judgments

One cannot make a taxable profit or loss from transactions with oneself, as profit only arises from dealings with external third parties, even when transferring assets between different accounts or divisions of the same entity.

Judgments citing permanent establishment

Venugoopal Subramanyam Raja, Kumbakonam vs. DCIT Cirle 2(1), Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2856/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2855, 2856 & 2857/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Venugoopal Subramaniyam Raja, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 40/41, Town High School Road, Income Tax, Kumbakonam 612 001, Tamil Nadu. Circle 2(1), Trichy. [Pan:Aafpr5570F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 09.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(v)

loan was obtained from foreign bank and repayment also made thereon. He argued that since interest paid to foreign bank having no permanent establishment in India, the provisions under section 195 of the Act does not apply. He submits that the ITAT 5 I.T.A. No.2855-2857/Chny/24 decided the issue under section ... deducted only if the payment (in this case, interest) has an element of income embedded on it. When the payee has no permanent establishment in India, it has no liability for income-tax. If the sum paid or credited by the payer is not chargeable to tax, then the obligation

Venugoopal Subramanyam Raja, Kumbakonam vs. DCIT Cirle 2(1), Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2855/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2855, 2856 & 2857/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Venugoopal Subramaniyam Raja, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 40/41, Town High School Road, Income Tax, Kumbakonam 612 001, Tamil Nadu. Circle 2(1), Trichy. [Pan:Aafpr5570F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 09.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(v)

loan was obtained from foreign bank and repayment also made thereon. He argued that since interest paid to foreign bank having no permanent establishment in India, the provisions under section 195 of the Act does not apply. He submits that the ITAT 5 I.T.A. No.2855-2857/Chny/24 decided the issue under section ... deducted only if the payment (in this case, interest) has an element of income embedded on it. When the payee has no permanent establishment in India, it has no liability for income-tax. If the sum paid or credited by the payer is not chargeable to tax, then the obligation

Tfdac Ireland II Limited, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle 4(1)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1198/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

supplementary lease rentals; (e) Applicability of Article 8 of the India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”); (f) Existence or otherwise of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India; (g) Levy of interest under sections 234A and/or 234B; (h) Initiation and levy of penalty under section 270A read with section ... India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”), which expressly excludes payments for the use of aircraft; (ii) that, in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India as defined under Article 5, the income constituted business profits taxable exclusively in Ireland under Article 7; and (iii) without prejudice, that

Dae(Sy22) Leasing (Ireland)41, Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1157/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

supplementary lease rentals; (e) Applicability of Article 8 of the India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”); (f) Existence or otherwise of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India; (g) Levy of interest under sections 234A and/or 234B; (h) Initiation and levy of penalty under section 270A read with section ... India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”), which expressly excludes payments for the use of aircraft; (ii) that, in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India as defined under Article 5, the income constituted business profits taxable exclusively in Ireland under Article 7; and (iii) without prejudice, that

Dae (Sabs) Leasing Ireland 43 Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax.Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and

ITA 1156/MUM/2025[2022-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-22
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

supplementary lease rentals; (e) Applicability of Article 8 of the India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”); (f) Existence or otherwise of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India; (g) Levy of interest under sections 234A and/or 234B; (h) Initiation and levy of penalty under section 270A read with section ... India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”), which expressly excludes payments for the use of aircraft; (ii) that, in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India as defined under Article 5, the income constituted business profits taxable exclusively in Ireland under Article 7; and (iii) without prejudice, that

Dae (Sabs) 10296 Ireland Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation), Cirlce 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and

ITA 1155/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

supplementary lease rentals; (e) Applicability of Article 8 of the India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”); (f) Existence or otherwise of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India; (g) Levy of interest under sections 234A and/or 234B; (h) Initiation and levy of penalty under Section 270A read with Section ... India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”), which expressly excludes payments for the use of aircraft; (ii) that, in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India as defined under Article 5, the income constituted business profits taxable exclusively in Ireland under Article 7; and (iii) without prejudice, that

Sky High Xliii Leasing Company Limited, Ireland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 4 (2) (1) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1122/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-2023
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

supplementary lease rentals; (e) Applicability of Article 8 of the India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”); (f) Existence or otherwise of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India; (g) Levy of interest under sections 234A and/or 234B; (h) Initiation and levy of penalty under section 270A read with section ... India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”), which expressly excludes payments for the use of aircraft; (ii) that, in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India as defined under Article 5, the income constituted business profits taxable exclusively in Ireland under Article 7; and (iii) without prejudice, that

Ortus Aircraft Lease 5( Dublin) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(2) International Taxation, Mumbai

ITA 1108/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

supplementary lease rentals; (e) Applicability of Article 8 of the India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”); (f) Existence or otherwise of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India; (g) Levy of interest under sections 234A and/or 234B; (h) Initiation and levy of penalty under section 270A read with section ... India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”), which expressly excludes payments for the use of aircraft; (ii) that, in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India as defined under Article 5, the income constituted business profits taxable exclusively in Ireland under Article 7; and (iii) without prejudice, that

Sunflower Aircraft Leasing Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(2)(2) International Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1107/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)

Ireland under Article 7 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Ireland (“India-Ireland DTAA”) owing to the absence of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India; or (ii) in the alternative, exempt in India under Article 8(1) of the DTAA being profits from the rental of aircraft ... Article 8 of India - Ireland DTAA. 13. Ergo, the controversy before us crystallises into three principal issues for adjudication; I). Existence of a Permanent Establishment in India • Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the continuous physical presence of the leased aircraft within Indian territory, coupled

Ortus Aircraft Lease 6(Dublin) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(2) International Taxation, Mumbai

ITA 1106/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

supplementary lease rentals; (e) Applicability of Article 8 of the India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”); (f) Existence or otherwise of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India; (g) Levy of interest under sections 234A and/or 234B; (h) Initiation and levy of penalty under section 270A read with section ... India–Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”), which expressly excludes payments for the use of aircraft; (ii) that, in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India as defined under Article 5, the income constituted business profits taxable exclusively in Ireland under Article 7; and (iii) without prejudice, that

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ufj Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3756/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanasstt. Yr.: 2006-07

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 44CSection 90

paid as salaries by the Head Office overseas, in foreign currency, to the expatriates working in India exclusively for the permanent establishment ('PE') of the Appellant in India, on which taxes have been duly deducted/deposited in India, and accordingly the order of the Hon'ble CIT(A) is erroneous ... maintained with Head Office Overseas Branch is not taxable in India? 3. The aforesaid issue arises in the context of interest received by the Permanent Establishment of the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd., now known as MUFG Bank, comprising of branches in India from its overseas branches and Head

M/S. the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ufj Ltd., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 3708/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 44CSection 90

Rs.127,955,895 paid as salaries by the Head Office overseas, in foreign currency, to the expatriates working in India exclusively for the permanent establishment ('PE') of the Appellant in India, on which taxes have been duly deducted/deposited in India, and accordingly the order

Mitsui Mining and Smelting Company Limited, Tokyo Japan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 2(2)(1), Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1407/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)

Section 144

complete control over the physical premises of the Indian subsidiary and also carrying out sales operations in India and, hence, the assessee is having Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The Ld. AO further took a view having regard to the fact that the assessee is having full control over ... India/Japan Treaty for having a PE in India, mere control of one company by another company (foreign) would itself will not constitute permanent establishment and it is standard practice to form subsidiary all over the world for running the business of enterprises smoothly. Counsel for the assessee further argued before

M/S.Redington Distributions Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intltaxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 894/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

also the statements obtained from the employees of the ‘Dollar Team’, the survey team was of the view that the assessee had a permanent establishment (in short ‘PE’) in India. On the basis of the findings of the survey team, the income-tax assessments of the assessee were reopened ... short "Tribunal/ITAT) on 16.11.2022. The Tribunal has, therein, confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer to the effect that the petitioner has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. However, the question of attribution of profits to the PE has been remanded for fresh consideration. 3. The petitioner has received

M/S.Redington Distributions Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intltaxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 893/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

also the statements obtained from the employees of the ‘Dollar Team’, the survey team was of the view that the assessee had a permanent establishment (in short ‘PE’) in India. On the basis of the findings of the survey team, the income-tax assessments of the assessee were reopened ... short "Tribunal/ITAT) on 16.11.2022. The Tribunal has, therein, confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer to the effect that the petitioner has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. However, the question of attribution of profits to the PE has been remanded for fresh consideration. 3. The petitioner has received

M/S. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 892/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

also the statements obtained from the employees of the ‘Dollar Team’, the survey team was of the view that the assessee had a permanent establishment (in short ‘PE’) in India. On the basis of the findings of the survey team, the income-tax assessments of the assessee were reopened ... short "Tribunal/ITAT) on 16.11.2022. The Tribunal has, therein, confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer to the effect that the petitioner has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. However, the question of attribution of profits to the PE has been remanded for fresh consideration. 3. The petitioner has received

M/S. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 891/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

also the statements obtained from the employees of the ‘Dollar Team’, the survey team was of the view that the assessee had a permanent establishment (in short ‘PE’) in India. On the basis of the findings of the survey team, the income-tax assessments of the assessee were reopened ... short "Tribunal/ITAT) on 16.11.2022. The Tribunal has, therein, confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer to the effect that the petitioner has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. However, the question of attribution of profits to the PE has been remanded for fresh consideration. 3. The petitioner has received

M/S.Redington Distributors Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 890/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

also the statements obtained from the employees of the ‘Dollar Team’, the survey team was of the view that the assessee had a permanent establishment (in short ‘PE’) in India. On the basis of the findings of the survey team, the income-tax assessments of the assessee were reopened ... short "Tribunal/ITAT) on 16.11.2022. The Tribunal has, therein, confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer to the effect that the petitioner has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. However, the question of attribution of profits to the PE has been remanded for fresh consideration. 3. The petitioner has received

M/S.Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 889/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

also the statements obtained from the employees of the ‘Dollar Team’, the survey team was of the view that the assessee had a permanent establishment (in short ‘PE’) in India. On the basis of the findings of the survey team, the income-tax assessments of the assessee were reopened ... short "Tribunal/ITAT) on 16.11.2022. The Tribunal has, therein, confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer to the effect that the petitioner has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. However, the question of attribution of profits to the PE has been remanded for fresh consideration. 3. The petitioner has received

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Cirlce - 1(1), Bengaluru vs. Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 1296/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Dr. Divya K.J., CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Suryanarayan, AR
Section 133ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

entities, falls within Article 12 of the India-Canada and Article 13 of the India-UK DTAAs, which body the concept of a service permanent establishment (a "service PE"). In terms of those articles, the Court must determine whether the overseas entities rendered "technical services" under Article