← 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

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 1712/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

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 International 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 1711/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

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

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2827/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2618/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Lm Wind Power As, Denmark vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4280/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271ASection 44DSection 5Section 92C

assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that LM Wind Power Blades India Private Limited ("LM India") constitutes Fixed Place Permanent Establishment ("PE") of the Assessee in India under Article 5 of the India-Denmark Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("Tax Treaty"). 3.3 That the assessing officer erred ... offered to tax by the assessee, as the same was not taxable in India in the absence of any business connection and/ or Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India. He submitted that in the assessment order dated 29.07.2024, it has been held that premises of LM India were under the control

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India, whether as fixed place

ITA 4092/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 144CSection 9(1)(i)

from its Indian cedents. Assessee has a business connection in India as per the provision of Section 9(1)(i) of the Act and permanent establishment in India As per Article 5 of India- Singapore DTAA and also treating the retrocession premium amounting to Rs.8,5116,158,941/- earned ... Assessing Officer treated the assessee as having a business connection in India under section 9(1)(i) of the Act and as having a permanent establishment in India under Article 5 of the India Singapore tax treaty, both in relation to the reinsurance premium from Indian cedents and the retrocession

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that the assessee does not have

ITA 3178/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
Section 144CSection 9(1)(i)

from its Indian cedents. Assessee has a business connection in India as per the provision of Section 9(1)(i) of the Act and permanent establishment in India As per Article 5 of India- Singapore DTAA and also treating the retrocession premium amounting to Rs.8,5116,158,941/- earned ... Assessing Officer treated the assessee as having a business connection in India under section 9(1)(i) of the Act and as having a permanent establishment in India under Article 5 of the India Singapore tax treaty, both in relation to the reinsurance premium from Indian cedents and the retrocession

DCIT(It) 1(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerece Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3127/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that Infomedia 18 Pvt Ltd does not constitute a' permanent establishment of the assessee in India under the provisions of Article 5 of the DTAA between India and Singapore and, accordingly, the income

DCIT(It)-1(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerece Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3126/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that Infomedia 18 Pvt Ltd does not constitute a' permanent establishment of the assessee in India under the provisions of Article 5 of the DTAA between India and Singapore and, accordingly, the income

DCIT(It)-1(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerece Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3125/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that Infomedia 18 Pvt Ltd does not constitute a' permanent establishment of the assessee in India under the provisions of Article 5 of the DTAA between India and Singapore and, accordingly, the income

Sempertrans India Private Limited, Roha vs. Income-Tax Officer, Panvel

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 1778/PUN/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1778/Pun/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain andFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade
Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 153Section 37(1)Section 92CSection 92D

stock, agent agreement, delivery conditions, etc.) and on ad-hoc issues; Coordination regarding group tax issues such as withholding taxes on royalties and dividends, permanent establishment issues, tax implications of M & A activities, transfer pricing, etc.; Monitoring of worldwide tax rate and optimization of tax burden for Semperit's local

Linklaters LLP, London vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle (3)(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1222/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Linklaters Llp Assistant Commissioner Of C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Income Tax (International Llp, Tower 3, 27-32 Floor, One Taxation) - 3(1)(2), International Centre, Mumbai Elphinstone Mill Compound, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone (West), Mumbai – 400 013. (Pan: Aabcl5182G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

benefits of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') and at the same time held that the services were performed through a permanent establishment in India Further, the learned AO held that the appellant's income is taxable on net basis. (b). The learned AO held the taxability ... ought to have appreciated that the said amendment does not apply to income covered under clause (i) of Section 9(1) Non-existence of permanent establishment in India 14. The learned AO erred in holding that the appellant's income is considered a technical service rendered through a permanent establishment

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, Stafford, United Kingdom vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 3(1)(1)Del, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms aforesaid

ITA 2042/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23] Uk Grid Solutions Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income St Leonards Building, Harry Tax, Circle International Taxation Kerr Dive, Stafford St16 1Wt, Vs -3(1)(1), Civic Centre, Minto Road United Kingdom-99999 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaica6271A Assessee/Appellant Revenue/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

India). The assessee has no role to play in Onshore project activities. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee has installation Permanent Establishment (in short ‘PE’), fixed place PE and a dependent agent PE in India. Thus, the Assessing Officer attributed business profits to PE under India-UK DTAA. Further ... India 7 Whether the assessee 9.8.4 and 25 10 and 27 constitutes dependent agent (PE) Whether the assessee had 26 28 constitutes fixed place permanent establishment in India Whether the onus is on the 9.8.5 and 25.1 11 and 28 AO to prove the existence of PE 8. Attributing

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(1)(2), New Delhi, Civic Centre, Minto Road

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

ITA 2029/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Assessee’s data base is in the nature of business profit, therefore, the same is not taxable in India as the assessee has no permanent establishment in India. By respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Elsevier Information System GmbH (supra

Argos Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3633/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

Tribunal) Rules and it is purely legal issue and the same is reproduced below :- “1. That the Appellant being a foreign company having no Permanent Establishment (P.E.) in India for A.Y. 2015-16, the provisions of section 6(3) were consequently inapplicable, warranting that the Ld. Assessing Officer ... such amount represented income of Appellant chargeable to tax in India, & in complete disregard of fact that Appellant is a non-resident with no permanent establishment in India. a. The AO failed to appreciate that Appellant being a foreign company, invested offshore funds in Non-Convertible Debentures (NCDs) of Sugam

Argos Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3632/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

Tribunal) Rules and it is purely legal issue and the same is reproduced below :- “1. That the Appellant being a foreign company having no Permanent Establishment (P.E.) in India for A.Y. 2015-16, the provisions of section 6(3) were consequently inapplicable, warranting that the Ld. Assessing Officer ... such amount represented income of Appellant chargeable to tax in India, & in complete disregard of fact that Appellant is a non-resident with no permanent establishment in India. a. The AO failed to appreciate that Appellant being a foreign company, invested offshore funds in Non-Convertible Debentures (NCDs) of Sugam

Oxbow Energy Solutions B.V., Thane vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4769/MUM/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Ms. JasminFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

that income is deemed to accrue to it on account of such business connection. 3. The AO/DRP erred in holding that ASSESSEE has a permanent establishment (PE) in India under the India-Netherlands DTAA and that income is attributable to its PE in India. 4. The AO/DRP erred in holding ... that a sum of Rs. 37.63 Lakhs claimed over and above the salary cost would constitute profits attributable to the Permanent Establishment (LO) as per paragraph 7(2) r.w. paragraph 7(3) of the India-Netherlands DTAA and that such, attribution amounting to about 12.27% is just and reasonable

Wts Energy Dmcc, Dubai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

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

ITA 1891/DEL/2025[AY 2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate along with Sohum Dua, Abhyudaya Shankar BajpaiFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234ASection 270A

circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. AO, in the Assessment Order, has erred in holding that the Appellant has a Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) in India without appreciating that no such finding was recorded in Draft Assessment Order dated 29 March 2024 passed ... customer. Since, the manpower recommended/supplied by the assessee is not under the control of the assessee, therefore, it does not form services Permanent Establishment (PE). The ld. Counsel submitted that Reliance Industries Ltd. and Vedanta Ltd. had floated tenders for hiring of the technical staff including engineers. The assessee

Gsma Ltd, Usa vs. ACIT Circle Intl Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2446/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2446/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Gsma Ltd., 1000 Abernathy Road, Suite 450, Atalanta, Untied State Of America ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaecg-1610-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(3)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: Shri P.P Singh, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 06.04.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Issued Defect Memo Stating That The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1076 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons For Delay In Filing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri P.P Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

addition is with respect to subscription fee of Rs.21,33,459/- received during the year. He contended that the assessee does not have any Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article 5 of India-US DTAA. The TDS was deducted on subscription fee, the assessee claimed refund

Skechers Sarl, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 2028/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234BSection 270A

buying commission income constitutes business income as per the provisions of Article 7 of India-Swiss DTAA, and in the absence of any Permanent Establishment in India, it would not be chargeable to tax in India, and hence, not liable to tax in India, Levy of interest under section 234B ... absence of relevant TRC, the assessee is ineligible for taxation benefit under DTAA between India and Switzerland. Accordingly, to establish assessee's permanent establishment (PE) in accordance with DTAA is not needed. Consequently, the assessee's income is taxable under the provisions of the Act and not under the DTAA