“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

M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/BANG/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.989/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Electronic City, Hosur Road, Tax, Bengaluru – 560 100. International Taxation, Pan : Aaccp 4478 N Circle 1(1), Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.02.2017 Of Cit(A) - 12, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Bpo Services. The Assessee Made Payment Of 2100 Us$ To A Non- Resident Viz., Stakeholder Centered Coaching (International Ltd.,)

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 248Section 5Section 9(1)(vii)

description of the service as “Fee, Training for Soft Skills” – Leadership Growth Progress Review Mini Survey. Admittedly the non-resident does not have a Permanent Establishment or any presence in India and is a tax resident of Hong Kong. The nature of remittance as described in Form No.15CB ... Resident —Leadership training provided to employees of group company — Training fees cannot be assessed as fees for technical services — As there is no permanent establishment in Income cannot be assessed - DTAA -India-Sweden Art, 5, 7, 12(b)1 Tribunal held that the leadership training provided by the assessee

Mfe Formwork Technology Sdn Bhd, Mumbai vs. The CIT (Intl Tax), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 890/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 263

Page 2 of 9 (MSA) with MFE India, and in view of the arrangements under the said agreement, MFE India constitutes its dependent agent permanent establishment in India. These facts are also well captured in the assessment order dated 18th December 2019 passed by the Assessing Officer, as follows ... terms of Para 5 of Article 5 of the DTAA between India and Malaysia. Thus, for the year under consideration, the assessee had a Permanent Establishment ('PE') in India in terms of Article 5 of the DTAA between India and Malaysia. The assessee has filed the Return of Income

Bank of America N.A, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed

ITA 3343/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bank Of America National Commissioner Of Income Tax Association, (International Taxation), Range-1, Ground Floor, A Wing, One Vs. 3Rd Floor, Room No. 9, Mittal Court Bkc, G Block, Bandra Kurla ‘B’ Wing, Nariman Point, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacb 1537 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Vasanti Patel Revenue By : Mr. Sunil K. Jha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil K. Jha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 9(1)(v)

India, the bank carries on its business of banking through its branches (i.e. king through its branches (i.e. king through its branches (i.e. Permanent Establishment). For the year under consideration, the assessee filed . For the year under consideration, the assessee filed . For the year under consideration, the assessee filed return ... income of head office/overseas branches is the interest income of head office/overseas branches is taxable in the hand of taxable in the hand of permanent establishment of the assessee permanent establishment of the assessee in India. Accordingly, he set aside . Accordingly, he set aside impugned assessment order and impugned assessment

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2889/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (DR)

Section 201(1)Section 40Section 80J

assessee also contended the income has not accrued in India in the hands of these recipients. Further, these non-resident concerns do not have permanent establishment (PE) in India as such provisions of Section 9 of the Act were not attracted. However, the Ld CIT(A) held that the fees

Immarsat Global Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose and ground raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 626/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleinmarsat Global Limited V. Dcit (It) – 2(2)(1) Ernst & Young Llp Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor 14Th Floor, The Ruby Air India Building, Nariman Point 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400021 Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aaaci6098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarati Sathe Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Aarati SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

Assessee, should neither be treated as 'royalty' under the India-UK DTAA nor under Act.” 1. Inmarsat does not have a Permanent Establishment in India 1. 1.1. It is also submitted that Inmarsat does not have a PE in India. During the earlier years the AO has alleged that Inmarsat ... Income-tax Rules, 1962. Ground number 6 The Hon'ble DRP has erred in concluding that the Liaison Office ('LO) constitutes a permanent establishment (PE) in India, without appreciating the fact the LO has in fact ceased to be the place of business of the Appellant in India: Ground number

Damco International Bv, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7447/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Poras Kaka, Sr.Advocate with Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: S/ Shri B.K.Bagchi & Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Counsel for the assessee anxiously rebutted the argument raised by the ld. Departmental Representative that Damco India is a Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment (DAPE). The ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that in the first instance this objection was never raised by the Assessing Officer or the DRP. Further ... accordance with Network Agreement dated 01/01/2013 (at page 3 of the paper book). The contentions of the assessee is that it does not have Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article -5 of India- Netherland DTAA. And by virtue of Article-7 of India – Netherland DTAA, network fees

M/S. Course5 Intelligence Private Limited (Formerly Cross Tab Marketing Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 15/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Course5 Intelligence Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Cross Tab Marketing Services The Deputy Pvt. Ltd.) Commissioner Of No. 422, 80 Feet Income Tax, Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), 6Th Block, Vs. Bangalore. Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 095. Pan: Aabcc6525A Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, Revenue By Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 14/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Assessing Officer Had Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner Passed By Him & The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Partially Confirming The Same. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 234B

invoicing between the Indian head office and foreign branch office is always income-tax neutral in the case of an Indian enterprise having a permanent establishment outside India. Making a transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the international transactions between the Indian head office and the foreign branch office will

DCIT (It)1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait Bsc, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 209/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)Section 440Section 44C

said amount should not be disallowed under section 37 of the Act. The assessee was also requested to recast its books of account of permanent establishment in India and explain as to why these expenses should not be considered in Head Office expenses as per section

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT(It) 1(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5129/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

case and in law, the learned AO, based on the directions of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in considering the Appellant's Permanent Establishment in India (ie. ANZ Mumbai) and the Head Office (HO) in Australia as separate and distinct entities for all income-tax purposes, and thereby treating

DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse Ag, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 14/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(vii)

assessee has opted for benefit of Indo-Swiss DTAA in respect of income earned by CSSB and CSMB. The CSMB constitutes a fixed place Permanent Establishment (PE) of CSAG (i.e. assessee) in India as provided in Article 5 of the DTAA and it has offered its income under Article ... Amro Bank NV (supra), that such interest not being allowable as deduction while computing the income of the Indian branches which constituted permanent establishment of the assessee bank, could not be brought to tax in India as income of the head office of the assessee bank. The addition made

Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1815/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Somendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR

view that the was of the view that the “DZ Bank India India representative representative office” office was was a a permanent permanent establishment (PE) of the head office “ of the head office “DZ Bank AG” and the interest Bank AG” and the interest income and other income earned ... German enterprise can be brought to tax in In German enterprise can be brought to tax in India as are attributable to its permanent establishment in India and the permanent establishment in India and the representative assessee did not constitute PE of the representative assessee did not constitute

Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1814/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Somendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR

Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1813/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Somendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR

Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1812/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Somendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR

Hempel Singapoe Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1205/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamini, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9

Dispute Resolution Panel (Hon'ble DRP)/Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) erred in further attributing Rs.8,35,44,660, as income of the Permanent Establishment (PE) of the Appellant, taxable in India. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/Ld. AO erred ... case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/ Ld. AO erred in not appreciating that the Appellant has attributed the appropriate profits to its Permanent Establishment in India as per Article 7 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Singapore. The Appellant prays that the income reported

Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. The DCIT 2(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above directions

ITA 659/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blehapag-Llyod Aktiengesellschaft V. Dcit – 2(2)(2) C/O Hapag-Lloyd India Pvt. Ltd., Air India Building 501, Satellite Gazebo, B-Wing Nariman Point 5Th Floor, Curu Hargovindji Marg Mumbai – 400 021 Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Pan: Aaach0979G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

Article 8 of India Germany DTAA with respect to income from Feeder vessels. The assessee was asked to show cause whether it has permanent establishment in India or not. In response assessee furnished submissions vide letter dated 17.02.2021, for the sake of clarity it is reproduced below: - “Hapag-Lloyd ... carrying out its business of operation of shipping through its agent in India through Hapag-Lloyd who concludes the contract. Thus it is a permanent establishment of assessee in India as per Article 5 of DTAA. Therefore, the income of the assessee is also chargeable to tax in India

Warner Bros. Distributing Inc., Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 601/MUM/2022[ 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blewarner Bros. Distributing Inc. V. Acit (It)-4(3)(2) C/O. Warnere Bros. Pictures India Private Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Floor 407, 4Th Floor, Windfall, Air India Building Sahar Plaza Complex Nariman Point Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar Mumbai – 400 021 Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400059 Pan: Aaacw6559R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.F. Jahangir Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

For Appellant: Shri A.F. JahangirFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh

Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)

that the assessee is also dealing with the other Non Resident Companies, so assessee cannot be considered as Agency PE within the definition of Permanent Establishment. 11) We have examined this aspect also. As rightly held by the CIT (A) even if income arises to the Non-Resident ... India, the income accruing or arising out of such business connection can only be taxed to the extent of the activities attributed to permanent establishment. In this case, the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India. Since the Indian company who obtained the rights is acting independently, Agency

DCIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Zoomin Online India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 50/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

Assessee any technical knowledge, skill, experience etc. Further, the CIT(A) returned a finding that the foreign payees did not have a permanent establishment in India, and therefore, payments to the foreign payees were not liable to tax in India. Thus, the provisions of Section 195 as well ... foreign payees, being in the nature of business profits, were not liable to tax in India in absence of the foreign payees having a permanent establishment in India. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pinstorm Technologies (P.) Ltd versus

Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Private Limited, Ramanagaram vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 92D

behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the other State, and (c ) the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment which the employer has in the other State. 3. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Article, remuneration derived in respect of an employment exercised aboard ... behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the other State; and, (c) if the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment or a fixed base which the employer has in the other State. 14.4.1 The first condition – is not relevant as the seconded employees have been

Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (OSD) 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1019/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ld., V. Dcit (Osd)-10(3) 401-407, Nirman Vyapar Kendra Room No. 517, 4Th Floor Plot No. 10, Sector – 17 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400703 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaca6783F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Shruti Agarwal Department By : Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 195Section 40

these foreign remittances, assessee responded that the payments were made to non-residents of India and they do not have any branch or permanent establishment in India. Therefore, the payments are not deemed to accrue or arise in India. Assessing Officer issued show cause notice as to why these payments ... countries, business profits are taxable only in the contracting state and not in the other contracting state i.e. India, unless the payee has any permanent establishment in India. Since, in the present case, none of the foreign commission agents had any permanent establishment in India during the captioned assessment year