← 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

M/S. Buro Happold Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation) -1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 951/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Buro Happold Ltd Vs. Dcit (It) – 1(3)(2) C/O. Urmi Axis, 6Th 1810, 18Th Floor, Air Floor, Famous Studio India Bldg, Lane, Dr. Emoses Road, Narimanpoint,Mumbai- Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 021. 400011. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb9239Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Anuj Kisnadwala. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Milind Chavan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/Sec144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Anuj Kisnadwala. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 234B

finally pleaded that such income be classified as only as business income and would not be taxable in India in the absence of permanent establishment (PE) as per Article 7 read with Article 5 of India-UK DTAA. All these submissions were also made by the assessee before ... processes to the recipient of service. Therefore, such services would be classified as business income and not taxable in India in the absence of Permanent Establishment (PE) in India as per Article-7 read with Article-5 of India-UK DTAA. 3.4 However, Ld. AO formed an opinion that

M/S Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/O Mtr Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (It), 100 Feet Inner Ring Road, Asmnt, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Aabco4087B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 17/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143 (3) By The Ld.Dcit, Asmnt, Circle-2(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. Barred By Limitation The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao') Is Barred By Limitation In View Of The Express Provisions Of Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Wherein, The Order Should Be Passed Within One Month From The End Of The Month In Which Dispute

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate
Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

under Article 12 of DTAA by relying on make available clause. Page 6 of 26  Thereafter the company has submitted that there is no permanent Establishment (PE) in India by referring to article 5 of the DTAA and has taken a stand that the income of Rs.71,21,169/- earned ... Contracting State, carries on business in the other Contracting 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 right, property or contract in respect

Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5121/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1000/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy, Vs Addl. Cit, Fi-02610, Karaporti-3, Espoo, International Taxation Finland-2058530-6 Range-2(2) & New Delhi C/O Srbc & Associates, Llp, Golf View, Corporate Tower-B Sector-42, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2300E Ita No. 1116/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 1117/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 6704/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7419/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy, Vs Dcit, Fi-02610, Karaporti-3, Espoo, International Taxation Finland-2058530-6 Range-2(2)(2) & New Delhi C/O Srbc & Associates, Llp, Golf View, Corporate Tower-B Sector-42, Gurgaon-122011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2300E

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Indian customers from outside India on a principal to principal basis have been considered as 'business income' since NSN Oy does not constitute a Permanent Establishment in India. Accordingly, taxes amounting to INR 52,878,899 deducted by Indian customers in respect of the ITA No. 5121/Del/2019 Nokia Solutions & Networks ... Coming to the relevant core issue, we find that Appeal before us involve to the following two straight issues, (a) Does the assesee has Permanent Establishment (P.E) in India and (b) If so, what is the amount of income which can be attributed to the P.E and which is taxable

M/S Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy vs. DCIT, International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1117/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1000/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy, Vs Addl. Cit, Fi-02610, Karaporti-3, Espoo, International Taxation Finland-2058530-6 Range-2(2) & New Delhi C/O Srbc & Associates, Llp, Golf View, Corporate Tower-B Sector-42, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2300E Ita No. 1116/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 1117/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 6704/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7419/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy, Vs Dcit, Fi-02610, Karaporti-3, Espoo, International Taxation Finland-2058530-6 Range-2(2)(2) & New Delhi C/O Srbc & Associates, Llp, Golf View, Corporate Tower-B Sector-42, Gurgaon-122011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2300E

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Indian customers from outside India on a principal to principal basis have been considered as 'business income' since NSN Oy does not constitute a Permanent Establishment in India. Accordingly, taxes amounting to INR 52,878,899 deducted by Indian customers in respect of the ITA No. 5121/Del/2019 Nokia Solutions & Networks ... Coming to the relevant core issue, we find that Appeal before us involve to the following two straight issues, (a) Does the assesee has Permanent Establishment (P.E) in India and (b) If so, what is the amount of income which can be attributed to the P.E and which is taxable

M/S Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy vs. DCIT, International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1116/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1000/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy, Vs Addl. Cit, Fi-02610, Karaporti-3, Espoo, International Taxation Finland-2058530-6 Range-2(2) & New Delhi C/O Srbc & Associates, Llp, Golf View, Corporate Tower-B Sector-42, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2300E Ita No. 1116/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 1117/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 6704/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7419/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy, Vs Dcit, Fi-02610, Karaporti-3, Espoo, International Taxation Finland-2058530-6 Range-2(2)(2) & New Delhi C/O Srbc & Associates, Llp, Golf View, Corporate Tower-B Sector-42, Gurgaon-122011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2300E

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Indian customers from outside India on a principal to principal basis have been considered as 'business income' since NSN Oy does not constitute a Permanent Establishment in India. Accordingly, taxes amounting to INR 52,878,899 deducted by Indian customers in respect of the ITA No. 5121/Del/2019 Nokia Solutions & Networks ... Coming to the relevant core issue, we find that Appeal before us involve to the following two straight issues, (a) Does the assesee has Permanent Establishment (P.E) in India and (b) If so, what is the amount of income which can be attributed to the P.E and which is taxable

M/S. Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1000/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1000/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy, Vs Addl. Cit, Fi-02610, Karaporti-3, Espoo, International Taxation Finland-2058530-6 Range-2(2) & New Delhi C/O Srbc & Associates, Llp, Golf View, Corporate Tower-B Sector-42, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2300E Ita No. 1116/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 1117/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 6704/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7419/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy, Vs Dcit, Fi-02610, Karaporti-3, Espoo, International Taxation Finland-2058530-6 Range-2(2)(2) & New Delhi C/O Srbc & Associates, Llp, Golf View, Corporate Tower-B Sector-42, Gurgaon-122011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2300E

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Indian customers from outside India on a principal to principal basis have been considered as 'business income' since NSN Oy does not constitute a Permanent Establishment in India. Accordingly, taxes amounting to INR 52,878,899 deducted by Indian customers in respect of the ITA No. 5121/Del/2019 Nokia Solutions & Networks ... Coming to the relevant core issue, we find that Appeal before us involve to the following two straight issues, (a) Does the assesee has Permanent Establishment (P.E) in India and (b) If so, what is the amount of income which can be attributed to the P.E and which is taxable