← 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

Sms Group Gmbh, Delhi vs. ACIT.Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 377/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

/Del/2022 ITA No. 993 & 3297/Del/2023 MS Group Gmbh d) Receipts from Onshore Supervisory Services in relation to erection and commissioning (Permanent Establishment), where period of activity is more than six months: The assessee had revenue receipts of Rs. 89,18,35,644/- from M/s Bhushan Steel Ltd, JSW Steel ... audited books of account with respect to supervision services rendered in India and for the purpose of supervision services, the assessee constituted a “Supervision Permanent Establishment (Supervision PE). The ld AO with respect of supervision services offered by the assessee, the technicians (employees) of the assessee company visit India. Thus

Sms Group Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1)(2), International Txation, New Delhi

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

ITA 993/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

/Del/2022 ITA No. 993 & 3297/Del/2023 MS Group Gmbh d) Receipts from Onshore Supervisory Services in relation to erection and commissioning (Permanent Establishment), where period of activity is more than six months: The assessee had revenue receipts of Rs. 89,18,35,644/- from M/s Bhushan Steel Ltd, JSW Steel ... audited books of account with respect to supervision services rendered in India and for the purpose of supervision services, the assessee constituted a “Supervision Permanent Establishment (Supervision PE). The ld AO with respect of supervision services offered by the assessee, the technicians (employees) of the assessee company visit India. Thus

Sms Group Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 3(1)(2) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 3297/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

/Del/2022 ITA No. 993 & 3297/Del/2023 MS Group Gmbh d) Receipts from Onshore Supervisory Services in relation to erection and commissioning (Permanent Establishment), where period of activity is more than six months: The assessee had revenue receipts of Rs. 89,18,35,644/- from M/s Bhushan Steel Ltd, JSW Steel ... audited books of account with respect to supervision services rendered in India and for the purpose of supervision services, the assessee constituted a “Supervision Permanent Establishment (Supervision PE). The ld AO with respect of supervision services offered by the assessee, the technicians (employees) of the assessee company visit India. Thus

Sms Group Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 1592/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

/Del/2022 ITA No. 993 & 3297/Del/2023 MS Group Gmbh d) Receipts from Onshore Supervisory Services in relation to erection and commissioning (Permanent Establishment), where period of activity is more than six months: The assessee had revenue receipts of Rs. 89,18,35,644/- from M/s Bhushan Steel Ltd, JSW Steel ... audited books of account with respect to supervision services rendered in India and for the purpose of supervision services, the assessee constituted a “Supervision Permanent Establishment (Supervision PE). The ld AO with respect of supervision services offered by the assessee, the technicians (employees) of the assessee company visit India. Thus

Sms Group Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 1591/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

/Del/2022 ITA No. 993 & 3297/Del/2023 MS Group Gmbh d) Receipts from Onshore Supervisory Services in relation to erection and commissioning (Permanent Establishment), where period of activity is more than six months: The assessee had revenue receipts of Rs. 89,18,35,644/- from M/s Bhushan Steel Ltd, JSW Steel ... audited books of account with respect to supervision services rendered in India and for the purpose of supervision services, the assessee constituted a “Supervision Permanent Establishment (Supervision PE). The ld AO with respect of supervision services offered by the assessee, the technicians (employees) of the assessee company visit India. Thus

DCIT(It), Circle-1, Pune vs. East West Seeds India Private Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 858/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 201Section 250Section 9(1)(vii)

thus form part of its business income. It is also true that ITA Nos.833, 857 & 858/PUN/2025 [A] - 03 Appeals Hortigenetics does not have any Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. 3.4.6 The controversy therefore boils down essentially to the question as to whether the provisions of Article 7 apply ... Miscellaneous Income hence cannot be brought under Article 22 of India Thailand DTAA, further Hon’ble High Court held that since there is no permanent establishment, it cannot be brought to tax under Article 7. Ld.AR 6 ITA Nos.833, 857 & 858/PUN/2025 [A] - 03 Appeals submitted that ld.CIT(A) has followed

DCIT(It), Circle-1, Pune vs. East West Seeds India Private Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 857/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 201Section 250Section 9(1)(vii)

thus form part of its business income. It is also true that ITA Nos.833, 857 & 858/PUN/2025 [A] - 03 Appeals Hortigenetics does not have any Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. 3.4.6 The controversy therefore boils down essentially to the question as to whether the provisions of Article 7 apply ... Miscellaneous Income hence cannot be brought under Article 22 of India Thailand DTAA, further Hon’ble High Court held that since there is no permanent establishment, it cannot be brought to tax under Article 7. Ld.AR 6 ITA Nos.833, 857 & 858/PUN/2025 [A] - 03 Appeals submitted that ld.CIT(A) has followed

DCIT(It), Circle-1, Pune vs. East West Seeds India Private Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 833/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
Section 201Section 250Section 9(1)(vii)

thus form part of its business income. It is also true that ITA Nos.833, 857 & 858/PUN/2025 [A] - 03 Appeals Hortigenetics does not have any Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. 3.4.6 The controversy therefore boils down essentially to the question as to whether the provisions of Article 7 apply ... Miscellaneous Income hence cannot be brought under Article 22 of India Thailand DTAA, further Hon’ble High Court held that since there is no permanent establishment, it cannot be brought to tax under Article 7. Ld.AR 6 ITA Nos.833, 857 & 858/PUN/2025 [A] - 03 Appeals submitted that ld.CIT(A) has followed

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(3) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Indusind Media and Communication Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3945/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Ca (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 2078/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawalca(Singapore) Pte Ltd., The Assistant Vs. C/O Ca (India) Technologies Commissioner Of India Private Limited, Income Tax, S1 Wipro Sez, International Taxation, Doddathogur Village, Circle2 (1)(1), Begur Hobli, Mumbai. Electronic City, Bangalore-560100. [Pan :Aahcc8349Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ajit Jain, With Shri, Siddesh Chaugule, Ars Respondent By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2025 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble:

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, with Shri, Siddesh Chaugule, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 270ASection 274

claimed that the receipts are exempt on the following premises: (i) That It is a tax residence of Singapore. It does not have any permanent Establishment or place effective management in India during the previous year relevant to AY 2022-23 and it qualifies as a non-resident

Adp Private Limited, Hyderabad, Telangana vs. DCIT., Circle 1(1), Hyderabad, Telangana

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 332/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 195(2)Section 40

Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). (d) Not appreciating that the receipts received for providing business support services would constitute business income and in the absence of permanent establishment of the recipient in India, it cannot be taxed in India in terms of Article 5 read with Article 7 of India-Australia DTAA

Outsystems Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT Circle 2(2)(2) (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1601/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.1601/धिल्ली/2025(नि.व. 2022-23) Outsytems Singapore Pte. Ltd., 41-01, 8 Temasek Boulevard, Suntec Tower Three, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Singapore 389980 Pan Aadco-0528-P बिाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 2(2)(2), Civic Centre, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ajit Jain & Ms. Shivangi Chitlangia Chartered Accountants प्रधिवािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Ekta Jain, Cit(Dr) सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 10.01.2025, For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised As Many As 13 Grounds. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That He Is Not Pressing Ground No. 4 Of Appeal Assailing Validity Of The Assessment Order Without Din. In Light Of The 2 Statement Made By Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Ground No. 4 Of Appeal Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Ms. Shivangi ChitlangiaFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 14Section 143(3)

that the assessee company was incorporated under the laws of Singapore and is a tax resident of Singapore. The assessee does not have any Permanent Establishment (PE) in India within the meaning of Article 5 of India-Singapore Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Outsystems Group operates the software that enables

Nunhems Netherlands B.V., Napoleonsweg, Netherlands vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3382/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 270Section 9(1)(vi)

States, carries on business in the other State, in which the royalties or fees for technical services arise, through a permanent establishment situated therein, or performs in that other State independent personal services from a fixed base situated therein, and the royalties or fees for technical services are effectively connected ... with such permanent establishment or fixed base. In such case, the provisions of article 7 or article 14, as the case may be, shall apply. 44. We find from the perusal of Master Service Agreement ("MSA"), regarding routine IT support services, between the assessee and Tata Consultancy Services Netherlands

Mitsui & Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-2(2)(1)(International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5662/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Kumar Jatav, SR. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

further submitted that the assessee does not have any PE in India and therefore in the absence Permanent Establishment [PE] in India, the business income would not be chargeable under the DTAA in terms of Article 7 of the DTAA. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that ... Contracting State shall be taxable only in that Contracting State unless the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein. If the enterprise carries on business as aforesaid, the profits of the enterprise may be taxed in that other Contracting State but only

Mariappan Austin Prakash, Bengaluru, Kanrnataka vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Intl Txn Circle, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(i)

which is academic in the absence of any factual finding of either a fixed base as per Article 14 or a permanent establishment as per Article 5 of the India-UAE DTAA being determined in the case of the Appellant, and more so when the Tax Residency Certificate from ... benefit under 90(2) of the Act, where the income of the assessee shall not be taxable in India in the absence of permanent establishment in India. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee is allowed. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open

M/S Informatica Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Rage-3, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3356/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Saklani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271Section 274Section 28Section 37Section 40

behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the other State; and c. the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment or a fixed base which the employer has in the other State. 5.4 From the above facts mentioned above, it is clear that the seconded employees

Thaicom Public Company Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle Intl Tax-3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1803/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.1803/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2018-19) Thaicom Public Company Ltd., (Earlier Known As Shin Satellite Public Company Ltd.), C/O Mohinder Puri & Co. 1A-D, Vandhna, 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan No: Aagcs-4481-E बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 11002

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Jatinder Singh & Akshay MathurFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR (Through VC)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 9(1)(vi)

India-Thailand Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The assessee filed reply to the said notice on 07.04.2022 explaining that assessee has no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, hence, such receipts are not taxable in India as per Article 7 of India-Thailand DTAA. The assessee further explained that this issue

Alstom Transport Sa, Karnataka vs. DCIT, Int. Taxation Circle 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, impugned assessment order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1715/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.1711 To 1715/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2011-12, 2013-14 To 2015-16 और 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra & Ms. Priyan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT(DR)

denovo after examining the relevant contracts and other material available on record. The Tribunal further directed to decide the issue relating to existence of Permanent Establishment (PE) in India on the basis of documents relevant to decide the issue in impugned assessment year rather than simply relying on assessment orders

Alstom Transport Sa, Karnataka vs. DCIT, Int. Taxation Circle 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, impugned assessment order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1714/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.1711 To 1715/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2011-12, 2013-14 To 2015-16 और 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra & Ms. Priyan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT(DR)

denovo after examining the relevant contracts and other material available on record. The Tribunal further directed to decide the issue relating to existence of Permanent Establishment (PE) in India on the basis of documents relevant to decide the issue in impugned assessment year rather than simply relying on assessment orders

Alstom Transport Sa, Bangalore vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation Circle 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, impugned assessment order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1713/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.1711 To 1715/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2011-12, 2013-14 To 2015-16 और 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra & Ms. Priyan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT(DR)

denovo after examining the relevant contracts and other material available on record. The Tribunal further directed to decide the issue relating to existence of Permanent Establishment (PE) in India on the basis of documents relevant to decide the issue in impugned assessment year rather than simply relying on assessment orders