“ fixed place PE ”

(i) Formula One World Championship Ltd. v. CIT

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.

394 ITR 80 · 2017 · Supreme Court

200

Nortel Networks India International Inc. v. DIT

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.

386 ITR 353 · 2016 · High Court

DIT v. E-Funds IT Solution

The burden of proving the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) under a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) rests squarely on the Income Tax Department.

364 ITR 256 · 2014 · High Court

Adobe Systems Inc. v. ADIT

A subsidiary is an independent legal entity, and the mere relationship of holding-subsidiary or control by itself does not result in a Permanent Establishment (PE) for the foreign company in India, whether it be a fixed place PE or a dependent agent PE, even when the subsidiary provides outsourced services.

203 Taxmann 554 · 2011 · High Court

Trib.) 4) TVM Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax

A fixed place of business constitutes a Permanent Establishment (PE) under Article 5(1) of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement only if the premises are actually at the disposal of the foreign enterprise, thereby satisfying the crucial 'disposal test', and it is through this fixed place that the foreign enterprise carries on its business, wholly or partly.

237 ITR 230 · 1999 · Reported

DIT v. HCL Infosystems Ltd.

A non-resident entity's activities in India are assessed for Permanent Establishment (PE) under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements, considering types like fixed place, construction, and agency PE, and the applicability of presumptive taxation under sections such as 44BBB.

144 Taxmann 492 · 2005 · High Court

Galileo International Inc. v. DCIT

Reimbursement of salary costs of employees is not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the Act. Additionally, for a fixed place Permanent Establishment (PE) or place of management to exist, business premises must be made available or a right to use them must be established.

19 SOT 257 · 2008 · ITAT

ITA 381/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2026AY 2020-21

A Computer Reservation System (CRS) installed at the premises of Indian subscribers can constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, and a portion of income from Indian operations may be taxable in India, potentially exhausted by commission paid to Indian distributors.

Judgments citing fixed place PE

Ncr Global Solutions Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2)(2) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B.Vasanta, CIT-DR

that Appellant has a place of business in India and that NCR India has satisfied the conditions to be treated either as a Fixed place PE or has an Agency PE in India. 5.1. Hon'ble DRP has erred in law and on facts, in placing reliance on its directions ... issued for AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20 wherein adverse conclusion on existence of Agency PE and Fixed place PE is drawn merely by placing reliance on clause 6. 1(a) and 6. 1(b) of the Distribution Agreement in vacuum without appreciating the business model of the Appellant

Booking.Com B.V., the Netherlands vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2033/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarbooking.Com B.V. Vs. Acit, Circle -1(1)(2) Oosterdokskade 163, International Taxation, 1011 Dl, Amsterdam, The Civic Centre, Minto Road, Netherlands, New Delhi – 110002 Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagcb2395A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. M.S. Nethrapal, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151

India. 2. That the Ld. AO and the Ld. DRP have erred in holding that the Appellant constitutes a PE - Fixed Place PE and Dependent Agent PE, without any basis, material and on frivolous grounds and irrelevant considerations. 3.1 That the Ld. AO and the Ld. DRP have erred ... Rs.396,09,81,782/- is chargeable to tax in India. Ld. AO and DRP erred in holding that the assessee constitutes a PE fixed place PE and dependant agent PE without any basis. 8. The Appellant, a Netherlands-based company eligible for benefits under the India-Netherlands DTAA (*the DTAA

Fcs Computer Systems S Pte Ltd, India vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(3)(1), India

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1034/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarfcs Computer Systems S Pte Ltd, Vs. Acit, Office No. 07, 5Th Floor, A-40, I- International Taxation- Thum Tower-C, Sector-62, Up 1(3)(1), Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacf7319J Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Taneja, Adv Shri Divyansh Dubery, Adv Shri Shivam Kukreja, Adv Ms. Ria Toyal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Ekta Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C

cross border entity." 24. In view of the foregoing analysis, we affirm the findings of the High Court that the appellant has a fixed place PE in India within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the DTAA, and that, the income received under the SOSA is attributable to such

Saic Motor Corporation Ltd, China vs. DCIT, International Tax, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1191/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23] Saic Motor Corporation Assistant Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon, Room No.509, Building No.1, Vs Hsiidc Building, Vanijya Nikunj, Tower No.563, Songtao Road, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Pilot Free Trade Zone, Sanghai, Haryana-122001 China, Pan-Abfcs0870H Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Kunal Pandey, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rohit Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.01.2026 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153(1)

India. 2.2 The AO in the DAO held that the assessee did not conduct any offshore sales, had a Supervisory PE, DAPE and Fixed Place PE on supply of goods in ITA No.- 1191/Del/2025 SAIC Motor Corpora"on Ltd. India and proposed to add the income attributable to the PE ... against the action of the Assessing Officer in determining Permanent Establishment (PE) of the Assessee in India by way of supervisory PE and Fixed Place PE. All the above grounds are therefore, dealt together. These grounds are reproduced as under: “ Re: Constitution of Permanent Establishment ('PE') of the appellant

Oracle Systems Corporation, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

ITA 3313/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Indruj Sngh Rai, Spl. Counsel

ITA 1836/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

assessee in India. 2.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding that OIPL constituted a: (a) Fixed Place PE (under Article 5(1) of the DTAA) allegedly through which the business of the assessee is partly carried out. (b) Service PE (under Article ... DTAA Page 6 of 36 ITA Nos. 1833 to 1836/DEL/2009 & 3313/DEL/2013 Oracle Systems Corpn. Vs. ADDCIT viz. Article 5(1) for Fixed Place PE; Article 5(2)(l) for Employee based PE; and Article 5(4) for Agency PE. Accordingly, the AO has considered

Oracle Systems Corporation, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Indruj Sngh Rai, Spl. Counsel

ITA 1835/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2003-04

Oracle Systems Corporation, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Indruj Sngh Rai, Spl. Counsel

ITA 1834/DEL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2002-03

Oracle Systems Corporation, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Indruj Sngh Rai, Spl. Counsel

ITA 1833/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2001-02

Oracle Systems Corporation, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Indruj Sngh Rai, Spl. Counsel

ITA 1403/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2004-2005

Asia Today Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Asia Today Limited, Asst. Director Of Income C/O. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Tax (International Ltd., Vs. Taxation)-2(2), 135, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Scindia House, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Bellard Estate, Pan: Aabca0249F Mumbai - 400039 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2007, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The Relevant Facts For Adjudication Of This Appeal Are As Under: The Assessee, Being A Foreign Telecasting Company Incorporated In Mauritius & Having Tax Residency Certificate Of Mauritius , During The Ay Under Consideration Was Engaged In The Production & Acquiring Rights Of Various Television Films Including Feature Films, As A Copy Right Owner/Holder Of Various Hindi Feature Films Produced & Censored In India, As Mentioned In Schedule ‘C’ Annexed With The ‘Agreement Of 2 M/S Asia Today Ltd. Vs Asst. Dit (Int. Taxation)-2(2)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT is correct in holding that the assessee did not have a fixed place PE in India by observing that there was nothing to suggest that the assessee had any control over the business/premises of ESPN India when it has been

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

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

supervision services offered by the assessee, the technicians (employees) of the assessee company visit India. Thus, the presence of technicians in India constitutes fixed place PE in India within meaning of Article 5(1) of India-Germany Treaty. 8. The ld AO observed that taxation of business income

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

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

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

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

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

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

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR