“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

Air France, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1)(1), Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5205/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 250

which the assessee not only having a branch office but also has facilities at airports. Therefore, he held that the assessee is having a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and the FTS is effectively connected to such PE. Accordingly, he brought to tax a part of the income derived from ... received ; a system of credits has been created for IATP members. (iv) British Airways has a branch office in India, which constituted a permanent establishment (“PE”) in India, and, therefore, the income derived from permanent establishment in India was taxable as the same was not covered under the double taxation

Fcs Computer Systems S Pte Ltd, India vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(3)(1), India

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1034/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarfcs Computer Systems S Pte Ltd, Vs. Acit, Office No. 07, 5Th Floor, A-40, I- International Taxation- Thum Tower-C, Sector-62, Up 1(3)(1), Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacf7319J Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Taneja, Adv Shri Divyansh Dubery, Adv Shri Shivam Kukreja, Adv Ms. Ria Toyal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Ekta Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C

case, the Ld. AO has erred in law in failing to consider the deeming fiction created in Article 7(2) treating the permanent establishment in India as a separate and independent entity for the purpose of determining the profits attributable to the said Permanent Establishment as per Article ... Indian rupees with customers deducting the applicable tax deducted at source before remitting the payment to the branch office. The branch being a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India as per Article 5 of the India - Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), the Assessee has been offering the FCS Computer Systems

The Uk Trade Desk Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Int.Tax)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, various sub grounds of ground no

ITA 2038/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) The Uk Trade Desk Ltd. Acit (International Taxation-4(3)(1), 10Th Floor, 1 Bartholomew Close, Vs Mumbai, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, London, United Kingdom. [Pan No. Aahct6320Q] Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 254(1)Section 9(1)(i)

Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley Co. Inc. [292 ITR 416), that no further profits could be attributed to the Permanent Establishment ("PE") when the Indian Associated Enterprise ("AE") is remunerated at arm's length. 3.3 The Lower Authorities erred in attributing further profits to the Appellant ... Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment ("DAPE") in India by applying Rule 10 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("IT Rules") and, further erred in not following the provisions of Article 7 of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation ("DTAA") between India and the UK, providing for the application of transfer

General Reinsurance Corporation, United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Ground No

ITA 1817/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) General Reinsurance Corporation Acit (International Taxation), 1209, Orange Street Delaware, Vs Circle -2(3)(2), Mumbai Room No. 610, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Wilmington, United States, 19801 Usa Bhavan, G Block, Bandrakurla Complex, Bandra (East), [Pan:Aahcg8162B] Mumbai-400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 9(1)

directions of the learned DRP, erred in concluding that the Indian Branch of General Reinsurance AG (GRAG India Branch') is a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment ('DAPE') of the Appellant in India as per Article 5(4) of the India- United States of America tax treaty ("Tax Treaty'). In doing ... crore was received by assessee and 50% of which is found to be from business performed through 4 General Reinsurance Corporation permanent establishment (PE) in India attributable to operation to India that is Rs. 21.90 crore. Further, 10% of profitability applied to such operation, profit of Rs. 2.19 crore

Saic Motor Corporation Ltd, China vs. DCIT, International Tax, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1191/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23] Saic Motor Corporation Assistant Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon, Room No.509, Building No.1, Vs Hsiidc Building, Vanijya Nikunj, Tower No.563, Songtao Road, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Pilot Free Trade Zone, Sanghai, Haryana-122001 China, Pan-Abfcs0870H Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Kunal Pandey, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rohit Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.01.2026 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153(1)

Ground Nos. 5, 6 to 6.5 and 7 to 7.4 of the Appeal are against the action of the Assessing Officer in determining Permanent Establishment (PE) of the Assessee in India by way of supervisory PE and Fixed Place PE. All the above grounds are therefore, dealt together. These grounds ... reproduced as under: “ Re: Constitution of Permanent Establishment ('PE') of the appellant in India 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the assessing officer/DRP erred in holding that appellant has a PE in India. Re: alleged Supervisory PE of the appellant in India

Bharti Airtel Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, TDS, Ward-1(1), International Taxation, New Del;Hi

In the result, ground of appeal no

ITA 4580/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.4580/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2009-10) Bharti Airtel Ltd., Bharti Crescent, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase Ii, New Delhi 110070 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaacb-2894-G बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Ward 1(1), International Taxation, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Bhalla, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 201(1)

Netherlands, thus its effective place of management is Netherlands, ABN Amro, Stockholm, Sweden is only a Branch of the Bank. The Branch is a Permanent Establishment of the Bank and an integral part of ABN Amro Netherlands. Therefore, ABN Amro, Stockholm, Sweden fails the test of Resident ... Netherlands based bank and loan to the company in Indian is given by its Stockholm Branch. The Stockholm Branch of the bank is a permanent establishment, a Branch is liable to tax of its Branch profits. The Stockholm Branch is liable to Income Tax in Sweden within the meaning

Kloeckner Desma Machinery Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. Dy. CIT, Circle 2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(i)

noted that as per the said decision of Hon’ble Apex Court payments to non-resident agents who had no permanent establishment in India is not chargeable to tax under the Act and noting the fact that the non-resident agents in the case before him did not have ... permanent establishment in India, there was no liability on the assessee to deduct tax at source u/s.195 of the Act while making payment to such non-resident agents and no occasion, therefore, to disallow any expenses on account of payments made to such non-resident for non-deduction

Iyogi Technical Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 323/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 194(2)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

taxable in India in terms of Article 12(4) of the India-US Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (India-US DTAA) and AE has no permanent establishment in India and thus the provisions of deduction of tax at source u/s 195 of the Act are not applicable. 6. After considering

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Iyogi Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2064/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 194(2)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

Oracle Systems Corporation, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

ITA 3313/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Indruj Sngh Rai, Spl. Counsel

Section 234ASection 250(1)(a)Section 9(1)(vi)

thereof under the said agreement. 2. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding that OIPL constituted a Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee in India. 2.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding that OIPL constituted a: (a) Fixed Place ... That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of AO in attributing the profits to the alleged Permanent Establishment of the assessee in India. 3.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in holding that • OIPL transferred intangibles to the assessee

Oracle Systems Corporation, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

ITA 1836/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Indruj Sngh Rai, Spl. Counsel

Section 234ASection 250(1)(a)Section 9(1)(vi)

Oracle Systems Corporation, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

ITA 1835/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Indruj Sngh Rai, Spl. Counsel

Section 234ASection 250(1)(a)Section 9(1)(vi)

Oracle Systems Corporation, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

ITA 1834/DEL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Indruj Sngh Rai, Spl. Counsel

Section 234ASection 250(1)(a)Section 9(1)(vi)

Oracle Systems Corporation, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

ITA 1833/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Indruj Sngh Rai, Spl. Counsel

Section 234ASection 250(1)(a)Section 9(1)(vi)

Bechtel Ltd, London vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

received during the year from engineering and procurement support services provided to RIL which is not taxable in India as it has no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. However, the AO was of the view that as per section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, consideration received ... That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP has erred in holding that the Appellant had a Permanent Establishment in India. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has cred in proposing

Bechtel Limited, London vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1816/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

Acronis Asia Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )Range-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 2035/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Section 10(50)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

return of income, the assessee characterized the receipts as business income not chargeable to tax in India, as it admittedly did not have a permanent establishment in India within the meaning of Article 5 of the India-Singapore DTAA. Alternatively, and without prejudice, it was contended that once Equalization Levy ... under Article 7 of the India-Singapore DTAA as business profits. It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee has a permanent establishment in India within the meaning of Article 5 of the DTAA. No finding has been recorded to that effect either by the Assessing Officer

Sondex Wireline Ltd, United Kingdom vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation, Circle-3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1959/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.1959/धिल्ली/2025(नि.व. 2022-23) Sondex Wireline Ltd., Cody Technology Park, Builing X107, Range Road, Farnborough, Foreign, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant United Kingdom Gu14Ofg Pan Aaqcs-9766E बिाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 3(1)(2), Civic Centre, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate With S/Shri Sohum Dua, Abhudaya Shankar Bajpai (Through Vc) & Ms. Mansha Anand, Advocates प्रधिवािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Ekta Jain, Cit(Dr) सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Sohum Dua, Abhudaya ShankarFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

receipts received in respect of off shore supply of goods and standard software on erroneous presumption by the AO that the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 4. Narrating facts of the case, the ld. Counsel submits that

Jeppesen Gmbh, Germany vs. ACIT, Internation Taxation, Circle-3(1)(1), Mumbai, Maharashtra

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

ITA 1337/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Us Read As Under:

Section 10(50)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

Appellant from the Indian Customers qualify as business income and the same is not chargeable to tax in India in the absence of Permanent Establishment (PE) of the Appellant in India. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO/DRP grossly failed to appreciate that the consideration ... consistent stand before the Assessing Officer was that the consideration received from Indian customers constituted its business income and, in the absence of any Permanent Establishment in India, the same was not chargeable to tax in India. The Assessing Officer, however, in the draft assessment order took the view that

Asia Today Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 1403/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Asia Today Limited, Asst. Director Of Income C/O. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Tax (International Ltd., Vs. Taxation)-2(2), 135, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Scindia House, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Bellard Estate, Pan: Aabca0249F Mumbai - 400039 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2007, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The Relevant Facts For Adjudication Of This Appeal Are As Under: The Assessee, Being A Foreign Telecasting Company Incorporated In Mauritius & Having Tax Residency Certificate Of Mauritius , During The Ay Under Consideration Was Engaged In The Production & Acquiring Rights Of Various Television Films Including Feature Films, As A Copy Right Owner/Holder Of Various Hindi Feature Films Produced & Censored In India, As Mentioned In Schedule ‘C’ Annexed With The ‘Agreement Of 2 M/S Asia Today Ltd. Vs Asst. Dit (Int. Taxation)-2(2)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

done in India nor money received in India and therefore the Assessee is not liable to tax in India. Further the Assessee has no Permanent Establishment (in short “PE”) in India and thus the income from license of films for use of telecast on television, is not taxable in India ... circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in not treating M/s Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd. (MSM India as Permanent establishment of the assessee in terms of Article 5 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore? c. Whether on the facts and circumstances