← 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

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Dehradun

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 168/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

taxability of receipts on account of supply contracts. 3.1. It is an established and undisputed fact that the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India through which the assessee has carried out its operations in India. The contracts entered into by the assessee run into several years and there

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 167/DDN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

taxability of receipts on account of supply contracts. 3.1. It is an established and undisputed fact that the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India through which the assessee has carried out its operations in India. The contracts entered into by the assessee run into several years and there

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 166/DDN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

taxability of receipts on account of supply contracts. 3.1. It is an established and undisputed fact that the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India through which the assessee has carried out its operations in India. The contracts entered into by the assessee run into several years and there

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 165/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

taxability of receipts on account of supply contracts. 3.1. It is an established and undisputed fact that the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India through which the assessee has carried out its operations in India. The contracts entered into by the assessee run into several years and there

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue's are dismissed

ITA 164/DDN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalι.Τ.Α. No. 168/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 163/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2017-18) Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 164/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2018-19) Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 165/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2019-20) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 166/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 167/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2021-22) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Weatherford Oil Tools M.E Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Limited. 6Th Floor, Vaman Centre, Makwana Road, J. B. Nagar, Mumbai, Maharashtra Pan: Aaacw1524G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv, Sh. Amit Arora, Adv, Sh. Shivamyadav, Adv & Ms. Somya Singh, Adv Revenue By Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Cit(A)-Noida, 2 ('Ld. Cit(A)' For Short), Delhi Dated 31/07/2024 For The Assessment Years2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Respectively. 2. All The Above Appeals Are Having Identical Issues To Be Decided, Therefore, The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Were Heard Together & Decided In This Common Order. 2

Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

taxability of receipts on account of supply contracts. 3.1. It is an established and undisputed fact that the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India through which the assessee has carried out its operations in India. The contracts entered into by the assessee run into several years and there

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 163/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

taxability of receipts on account of supply contracts. 3.1. It is an established and undisputed fact that the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India through which the assessee has carried out its operations in India. The contracts entered into by the assessee run into several years and there

Solvay S A, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2071/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

such services would constitute business profits of the said overseas service providers. It was further observed, that as the said service providers had no Permanent Establishment (P.E) in India during the year under consideration, hence the business profits were not taxable in India in their hands as per Article

M/S Orbit Resorts (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 988/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 343 /Chd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14 M/s Orbit Resorts Limited बनाम The DCIT H.No. 256, Sector 9C, Chandigarh Circle 1(1), Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACO4024H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 988 /Chd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15 M/s Orbit Resorts Limited बनाम H.No. 256, Sector 9C, Chandigarh The DCIT Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9

commission agent in India, the orders are booked outside, there is no presence of the commission agent in India and they have no permanent establishment in India and that TDS would have been deductible only if Income was chargeable to tax in India. Thereafter, the learned assessing officer has controverted ... foreign land and not in India for services rendered outside India. We also find that such foreign commission agents do not have any permanent establishments in India, therefore, there income is not taxable in India. Once it is confirmed income that income any of such foreign commission agents

M/S Orbit Resorts (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 343/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: or at the time of hearing of appeal, with the permission of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9

commission agent in India, the orders are booked outside, there is no presence of the commission agent in India and they have no permanent establishment in India and that TDS would have been deductible only if Income was chargeable to tax in India. Thereafter, the learned assessing officer has controverted ... foreign land and not in India for services rendered outside India. We also find that such foreign commission agents do not have any permanent establishments in India, therefore, there income is not taxable in India. Once it is confirmed income that income any of such foreign commission agents

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Intertnational Taxation Circle-1, Dehradun vs. Huyndai Heavy Industries Co Ltd, Tyagi Road Dehradun

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 91/DDN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 254

Inudstries Ltd. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that the issues as to whether Mumbai office of the Assessee is a Permanent Establishment or not has been ongoing between Assessee and Revenue for many years and the said issue has been decided in favour of the Assessee ... Further submitted that, at no point of time Assessee accepted that Mumbai Liaison Office is a Permanent Establishment. Thus, sought for dismissal of the Ground No. 1 & 2 of the Revenue. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The issue as to whether

Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Limited, Dehradun

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 54/DDN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 254

Inudstries Ltd. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that the issues as to whether Mumbai office of the Assessee is a Permanent Establishment or not has been ongoing between Assessee and Revenue for many years and the said issue has been decided in favour of the Assessee ... Further submitted that, at no point of time Assessee accepted that Mumbai Liaison Office is a Permanent Establishment. Thus, sought for dismissal of the Ground No. 1 & 2 of the Revenue. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The issue as to whether

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Hyundai Heavy Industries Limited, Dehradun

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 156/DDN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 254

Inudstries Ltd. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that the issues as to whether Mumbai office of the Assessee is a Permanent Establishment or not has been ongoing between Assessee and Revenue for many years and the said issue has been decided in favour of the Assessee ... Further submitted that, at no point of time Assessee accepted that Mumbai Liaison Office is a Permanent Establishment. Thus, sought for dismissal of the Ground No. 1 & 2 of the Revenue. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The issue as to whether

DCIT, Range-3, Lucknow vs. M/S. Prayagraj Power Generation Company Ltd., Noida

In the result, ground no. 1 of appeal is dismissed and ground no

ITA 393/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115J

section 90 or the Central Government has adopted any agreement under sub-section (1) of section 90A and the assessee does not have a permanent establishment I.T.A. No.393/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2016-17 21 in India in accordance with the provisions of such agreement; or (ii) the assessee is a resident

Site Concepts Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2123/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri K.B. Muralidharan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep S, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 195Section 40

relied on the remand report and came to the conclusion that the AO has established that the subsidiary company of the appellant is having permanent establishment in India and therefore section 195 of the Act would be applicable to the facts of the case and therefore the disallowance made u/s.40 ... submitted that the income could not be also treated as business income of the Philippines company since the said company is not having any permanent establishment in India and the AO had also not made it clear, how the Philippines company is having a permanent establishment in India. The Ld.AR

Warner Bros Distributing Inc., United States of America vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation 4(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3411/MUM/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra (virtually present)For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)

Return of Income (Rol') filed by the Appellant. 2. Grounds relating to Permanent Establishment ('PE") 2. 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in alleging that WBDI has a Dependent Agent PE ('DAPE)) in India in the form ... separate adjudication. 4. Grounds No. 2.1-2.3 and 3.1-3.3, raised in the assessee's appeal, pertain to the existence of Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (“DAPE") of the assessee in India and the taxability of distribution income as business income. 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this

Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte, Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internation Tax)-2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2063/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 250

such income entirely and therefore the computation of income in the country of source is immaterial, [e.g. Business income in the absence of the Permanent Establishment (PE) when a foreign enterprise does not have a PE in India, there is no computation done when the income is reported in India

Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte, Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internation Tax)-2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2062/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 250

such income entirely and therefore the computation of income in the country of source is immaterial, [e.g. Business income in the absence of the Permanent Establishment (PE) when a foreign enterprise does not have a PE in India, there is no computation done when the income is reported in India

Denso International Asia Co., Ltd., Thailand vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 402/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.402/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2022-23) Denso International Asia Co. Ltd., 888 Moo 1, Bangna-Trad Road Km 27 5, Bangbo Subdistrict, Samutprakarn Province, Thailand, 10560 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aadcd-4652-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Interantional Taxation 1(2)(2), Civic Centre, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Vishal Kalra, Saumyendra Tomar, Advocates & Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 28.11.2024, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). 2. Facts Of The Case In Brief As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is A Tax Resident Of Thailand. The Assessee Acts As Regional Service Centre Of The Denso

For Appellant: S/Shri Vishal Kalra, Saumyendra TomarFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

country, then the income in question would be assessable as business income and it can be taxed in India only if there is a permanent establishment in India and the income is attributable to activities or functions performed by such permanent establishment. Reliance for same can be placed on reliance

Huawei International Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. ACIT-Circle 2(1)(1), Intl. Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application of 7

ITA 2648/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh & Sa 298/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Huawei International Pte. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 51, Change Business Park, Circle-2(1)(1), Central-2, #07-08, The International Signature, Singapore Taxation, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacch3694N Assessee By : Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv Shri Himanshu Aggarwal, Adv Shri Yash Nagar, Adv Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/10/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. s. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149

India) on offshore basis. The sales were made from outside India and payments were also received outside India. Accordingly, in the absence of Permanent Establishment / business connection in India, no income accrued or arose in India which can be subjected to tax in India under the provisions ... garb of reopening was only trying to make detailed investigation on the claim of offshore services of the assessee and non-existence of Permanent Establishment (PE) in India of the assessee. This by any stretch of imagination cannot be construed as formation of belief warranting reopening of assessment. The Learned

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

violation of principles of natural justice. 10.2 That the assessing officer/DRP erred on facts and in law in holding that SMC had a Permanent Establishment ["PE"] in India in terms of Article 5 of the India-Japan Tax Treaty ["Treaty"] and income arising to SMC from sale of goods