← 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

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu(2), Chennai

ITA 202/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

2 ITA Nos .661 & 914/19, 202,203/23 others years 2015-16, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 respectively against different impugned

ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

ITA 914/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

2 ITA Nos .661 & 914/19, 202,203/23 others years 2015-16, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 respectively against different impugned

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai

ITA 661/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

2 ITA Nos .661 & 914/19, 202,203/23 others years 2015-16, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 respectively against different impugned

DCIT Corporate Circle 3 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee & Revenue for AYs 2011-

ITA 3024/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishit (Tp) A No.3/Chny/2018 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S.Vestas Wind Technology- India Pvt. Ltd., No.298, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aaaca 9274 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dy. Commissioner- Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.3024/Chny/2019 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner- Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai. V. M/S.Vestas Wind Technology- India Pvt. Ltd., No.298, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aaaca 9274 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Shri N.V.Balaji, Adv. : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : 08.10.2024 : 31.12.2024 It (Tp) A No.3/Chny/2018 For Ay 2011-12 &

Section 144CSection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

examine whether the agreement for performance guarantee is for the purpose of its business and whether the recipient can be considered to have permanent establishment in India. 1.3 The Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP exceeded the jurisdiction by examining whether the payment made by the Appellant is Fees ... have argued that the impugned payment was in the nature of 'business profits' for the parent company and therefore in the absence of a permanent establishment ('PE') in India, the payment was not liable to tax and accordingly the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act was unwarranted

DCIT (It) 3.1.2, Income Tax Office, Kautiliya Bhawan vs. Linklaters and Paines, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the department is accordingly dismissed having become infructuous

ITA 5119/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandcit(It) 3(1)(2) Vs. Linklaters & Paines Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, Kautilya C/O- Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Bhavan, Mumbai-400 051 Tower 3, 28Th -30Th Floor, Indiabulls Finance Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai. Pan: Aabfl2160M

Section 115ASection 9Section 9(1)(vil)

justified in holding that the income of the assessee is not taxable in India as it is not having any permanent establishment in term of Article 5(2)(k)(i), without considering that the receipts of the assessee is fees for technical services as per meaning of section

Kiri Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1513/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 234ASection 270ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

payable entities in India for the services rendered abroad. The commission agents who have been paid commission do not have any permanent establishment in India. Hence, no disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act, is attracted as the entities were not situated in India. It was also submitted that ... have rendered their services outside India in connection with procurement of sale. All the agents have overseas offices and they were not having any permanent establishment in India. At the time hearing learned DR has not brought any material on record suggesting that the non-resident agents are having

M/S. Skaps Industries India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, (Inte. Taxn)-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for both the assessment years

ITA 681/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Shri ParinFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. D.R
Section 195Section 201

held that the payments received by Teems Electric (TEC) were business receipts and that, since TEC had a permanent establishment (PE) in India, the income from those receipts was taxable as business income in India and therefore, the taxability and consequent tax withholding requirement on such payments on the part ... than 120 days, the appellant did not produce any credible evidence to support their claims. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) held that TEC had a permanent establishment in India due to the prolonged stay of its employees and the nature of the activities conducted in India. Ld. CIT(A) analyzed

M/S. Skaps Industries India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, (Innt. Taxn)-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for both the assessment years

ITA 680/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Shri ParinFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. D.R
Section 195Section 201

held that the payments received by Teems Electric (TEC) were business receipts and that, since TEC had a permanent establishment (PE) in India, the income from those receipts was taxable as business income in India and therefore, the taxability and consequent tax withholding requirement on such payments on the part ... than 120 days, the appellant did not produce any credible evidence to support their claims. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) held that TEC had a permanent establishment in India due to the prolonged stay of its employees and the nature of the activities conducted in India. Ld. CIT(A) analyzed

Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT Circle Intl. Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2358/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(i)

that the assessee is a Singapore based entity. It is undisputed that it is eligible for tax treaty benefits and does not have a Permanent Establishment in India. Accepted position by the Assessing Officer is that there is no PE. It is submitted that considering trading business of the assessee ... established facts are that the assessee is a Singapore based entity and is eligible for tax treaty benefits and does not have a Permanent Establishment in India. We find that the assessee is trading in commodities and apart from actual sale purchase of commodities, it also undertakes ‘hedging transaction

Criteo Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT Ciricle 1(2)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2122/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT- DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

customers (i.e., advertisers and marketing agencies) in Singapore on various online third-party platforms/websites. The assessee does not have a presence in India or Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) in India under Article 5 of the DTAA during the year under consideration. 4. The assessee has entered into a Services Agreement

M/S. La Opala RG Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1) [Formerly JCIT, Range-12, Kolkata ]

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1865/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 11(1) M/S La Opala Rg Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 8Th Floor, Premises No.803 & 804 Eco Centre, Em-4, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700091, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl5569J Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Tulsyan & Deepak Mundhra, Tanmoy Kar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Tulsyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 133(6)Section 37

contention of appellant are considered and found to be acceptable. Th income of foreign agents is taxable in India only when the have permanent establishment ("PE"). The Ld. AO has not proved in the assessment order that the agent to whom commission is paid, has PE in India. Merely, being

M/S. Qliktech International Ab, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Assessment Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 990/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (DR)

ground No. 2 and 3 is that the ld. DRP/AO erred in holding that the Indian subsidiary of the assessee is dependent agent permanent establishment of the assessee. 4. The necessary facts are that the assessee in the present case is a foreign company and engaged in the sale ... supplied by the foreign company being the assessee to its customers in India. According to the AO the Indian company is a dependent agency permanent establishment of the assessee and accordingly the AO concluded that the income earned by the assessee is taxable to the extent attributable in India

Eurofins Peenya Resources Private Limited (Formerly Known As Eurofins Advinus Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1114/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

were in the nature of purchase of spares and other maintenance equipment and will thus not be taxable in India in the absence of permanent establishments of such foreign vendors in India. 4.3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned assessing officer and the CIT(A). NFAC have erred

M/S. Eurofins Peenya Resources Private Limited(Formerly Know As Eurofins Advinus Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1113/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

were in the nature of purchase of spares and other maintenance equipment and will thus not be taxable in India in the absence of permanent establishments of such foreign vendors in India. 4.3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned assessing officer and the CIT(A). NFAC have erred

Western Digital Technologies Inc, Usa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incomer Tax, International Taxation, Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 344/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)
Section 234ASection 270A

appeal is that the ld. AO/ Ld. DRP erred in treating M/s SanDisk India as a Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee and, consequently, the taxation of the assessee's income in India. 6. The facts in brief are as follows: the assessee is a foreign company based ... assessee and SanDisk India in relation to marketing selling or distribution of its product in India. Accordingly, the question of dependent agency permanent establishment does not arise for calculating the income chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee being a foreign company. 11. The learned DR supported

Kreuz Challenger Pte Ltd, Singapure vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle2(1)(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2373/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Kreuz Challenger Pte Ltd., Vs Acit, 2, Venture Drive, International Taxation #24-01 Vision Exchange, Circle 2(1)(2), Singapore , 999999 New Delhi. Pan : Aahck3082A

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms C. Chandra Kanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 197Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

that is established that assessee has no PE in India, the only question required to be examined is if even in the absence of permanent establishment, assessee would still be covered by the provisions of section 44BB, and not entitled to benefit of DTAA. In this regard, it is important ... that case that income of the assessee which is a tax resident of UK is not taxable in India since neither it had a permanent establishment in India nor the provisions of section 44B be applied and thereby it concluded in para 8 as follows:- “8. Thus, a reading

Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited, Chennai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), International Taxation, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1680/CHNY/2024[AY 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(viii)

carried and utilized outside India and therefore, no Tax was required to be deducted at source. And since the non-resident dealers had no permanent establishment in India, the receipts were not taxable in their hands as per Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. And that the payments would not fall under ... therefore, there is no TDS obligation on the part of the assessee in view of the fact that the payees do not have any permanent establishment in India. Finally, Ld. AR has submitted that no services have been rendered to the assessee rather the technical services, if any, has been

Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited, Chennai vs. The Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle 2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1676/CHNY/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(viii)

carried and utilized outside India and therefore, no Tax was required to be deducted at source. And since the non-resident dealers had no permanent establishment in India, the receipts were not taxable in their hands as per Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. And that the payments would not fall under ... therefore, there is no TDS obligation on the part of the assessee in view of the fact that the payees do not have any permanent establishment in India. Finally, Ld. AR has submitted that no services have been rendered to the assessee rather the technical services, if any, has been

M/S. Allsec Technologies Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Intl Tax -1(1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1512/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1512/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Allsec Technologies Limited Dcit बनाम/ 46C, Velachery Main Road, Velacherry, International Taxation-1(1) Vs. Chennai-600 042. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aacca-5106-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/ Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(i)

resident was paid service charges for providing Co-Location and Telecom voice services in UK and USA and the recipient did not have any permanent establishment in India, the service was not chargeable in India in the absence of its permanent establishment in India in view of section

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Allsec Technologies Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1662/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1255/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1662/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit M/S. Allsec Technologies Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1(1), 560, 562, 7H Century Plaza, Vs. Chennai. Teynampet, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aacca-5106-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) - Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 & 2011-12 Has Common Issues. First We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2010-11 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 31-01-2019 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Novatel Ltd. However, no TDS was deducted against the same on the ground that the recipient did not have any business connection or permanent establishment in India. In such a case, there would be no TDS liability u/s 195. However, Ld. AO referred to Explanation ... submission on the question that the transaction is only a service and hence the consideration is not royalty, no arguments are made on permanent establishment or on the effect of the amendments. The assessee had submitted a detailed written submission on the clauses in the agreement and on the legal