← All Phrases

“fixed place PE”

International TaxDTAA Article 5DTAA Article 5222 judgments

The decision most relied on for fixed place PE is DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co. (292 ITR 416), cited in 360 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on fixed place PE

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.

(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.

Nortel Networks India International Inc. v. DIT
386 ITR 353 · 2016 · High Court
61
citing judgments

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.

DIT v. E-Funds IT Solution
364 ITR 256 · 2014 · High Court
61
citing judgments

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.

Adobe Systems Inc. v. ADIT
203 Taxmann 554 · 2011 · High Court
59
citing judgments

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.

Trib.) 4) TVM Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax
237 ITR 230 · 1999 · Reported
47
citing judgments

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.

DIT v. HCL Infosystems Ltd.
144 Taxmann 492 · 2005 · High Court
45
citing judgments

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.

Galileo International Inc. v. DCIT
19 SOT 257 · 2008 · ITAT
31
citing judgments

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

M/S.Redington Distributions Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intltaxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 893/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

after making necessary enquiries concluded that, the assessee had both a fixed place PE and a dependent agent PE in India. The AO thereafter attributed the profits to this PE on the basis of the total employee cost of RIL and the assessee, and also the asset base ... Dollar Team were neither preparatory nor auxiliary services but main functions of a group business, it was held that the appellant had a fixed place PE in India. As the Dollar Team of the Indian Holding Company concluded contracts on behalf of the appellant, the activities undertaken by the Dollar

M/S. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 892/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

after making necessary enquiries concluded that, the assessee had both a fixed place PE and a dependent agent PE in India. The AO thereafter attributed the profits to this PE on the basis of the total employee cost of RIL and the assessee, and also the asset base ... Dollar Team were neither preparatory nor auxiliary services but main functions of a group business, it was held that the appellant had a fixed place PE in India. As the Dollar Team of the Indian Holding Company concluded contracts on behalf of the appellant, the activities undertaken by the Dollar

M/S. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 891/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

after making necessary enquiries concluded that, the assessee had both a fixed place PE and a dependent agent PE in India. The AO thereafter attributed the profits to this PE on the basis of the total employee cost of RIL and the assessee, and also the asset base ... Dollar Team were neither preparatory nor auxiliary services but main functions of a group business, it was held that the appellant had a fixed place PE in India. As the Dollar Team of the Indian Holding Company concluded contracts on behalf of the appellant, the activities undertaken by the Dollar

M/S.Redington Distributors Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 890/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

after making necessary enquiries concluded that, the assessee had both a fixed place PE and a dependent agent PE in India. The AO thereafter attributed the profits to this PE on the basis of the total employee cost of RIL and the assessee, and also the asset base ... Dollar Team were neither preparatory nor auxiliary services but main functions of a group business, it was held that the appellant had a fixed place PE in India. As the Dollar Team of the Indian Holding Company concluded contracts on behalf of the appellant, the activities undertaken by the Dollar

M/S.Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 889/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 144CSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

after making necessary enquiries concluded that, the assessee had both a fixed place PE and a dependent agent PE in India. The AO thereafter attributed the profits to this PE on the basis of the total employee cost of RIL and the assessee, and also the asset base ... Dollar Team were neither preparatory nor auxiliary services but main functions of a group business, it was held that the appellant had a fixed place PE in India. As the Dollar Team of the Indian Holding Company concluded contracts on behalf of the appellant, the activities undertaken by the Dollar

Amadeus It Group Sa, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Civic Center

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1494/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT- DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vi)

following the orders passed in the earlier years held that the computers provided to the travel agents through which sales are conducted, constituted fixed place PE of the assessee in India under Article 5(1) of the India-Spain Tax Treaty. Further, the Assessing Officer also held the assessee

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) - Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1092/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 9(1)(i)

cannot be pressed into service unless these provisions are more beneficial. 10. In so far as assessee RGA services does not constitute a fixed place PE in India as per Clause 5 of the treaty on account of the following reasons:- ► RGA Ireland does not conduct any insurance business ... assessee The DRP has simply observed that since the core business activities are conducted by RGA India, RGA India constitutes the fixed place PE As we we have seen above, unless a particular place is at the disposal of the assessee, that place cannot be said to constitute the PE

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4432/MUM/2024[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarwns Global Services Private Vs Assessment Unit, National Faceless Limited, Mumbai Assessment Centre, New Delhi Pl-10/11, Gate No.4, Godrej- Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, L.B.S.Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400 079 Pan: Aaacw2598L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: ShriPorus Kaka A/w Manish KanthFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253

case, the reasoning for making the addition in the final assessment order by the ld. AO is by treating the assessee as a Fixed Place PE, which has already been nullified by the ld. DRP. The ld. AO in the final assessment order is bound to complete the assessment

International Air Transport Association, Mumbai (for Sending Notices) vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3330/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3330/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) International Air V/S. Dcit (It), Circle 2(2)(1), Transport Association बिधम Mumbai C/O Ernst & Young Llp Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Air India Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Dadar (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400021 Maharashtra-400028 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacci4695N Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka and Shri DiveshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Permanent Establishment (DAPE) which is now the case before us. As we have seen earlier, the provisions of DAPE override the provisions regarding fixed place PE, and, therefore, any observations made in the context of fixed place PE do not apply to the DAPE situations. As regards the reference

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Khirendra M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar- Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(e)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

AO/DRP has grossly erred in holding that the Appellant has a Permanent Establishment ('PE') in the nature of fixed place PE in India in terms of Article 5 (1) of the India - UAE tax treaty while doing so:- 6.1 The Ld. AO/DRP has erred on facts & in law, in attributing ... held that the control and management of the assessee are being carried out from India and accordingly held that the assessee has a fixed place PE in India. The AO further held that since the majority of the functions are carried out from India 75% of the total income

DCIT (It) 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Misc Berhard, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6644/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) बनाम Dcit (It) – 3(2)(2), Mumbai M/S. Misc Berhard C/O Msc Agency (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Himalayas, 2Nd Floor, Geetmala Complex, Near To Shah Industrial Estate, Deonar, Govandi, Mumbai – 400088. Pan: Aaccm 1736 E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 254(1)

assessee in Indía under Article 5 of the Tax Treaty; 4. That the Ld. AO erred in holding MISC Agencies as Fixed Place PE under Article 5(1) of the Tax Treaty; 2 CO No. 64/MUM/2018 M/s. MISC Berhard 5. That the Ld. AO erred in holding that the premises

Ab Sciex Pte. Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 804/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44B

after careful examination of the facts of the case (which are identical to the facts for the AY under consideration) held that no fixed place PE and Agency PE of the Appellant is constituted in India; 2.2. Completely ignoring the judgement passed in favour of the Appellant ... case and in law, the Ld. AO as well as Hon’ble DRP have erred in holding that the Appellant has a fixed place PE and dependent agency PE in India. Ground 4: In doing so, the Ld. AO/ Hon’ble DRP has erred in passing the order solely based

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commission of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2791/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

AO/DRP has grossly erred in holding that the Appellant has a Permanent Establishment ('PE') in the nature of fixed place PE in India in terms of Article 5(1) of the India - UAE tax treaty while doing so:- 6.1 The Ld. AO/DRP has erred on facts & in law, in attributing

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai, Maharastra

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2357/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

AO/DRP has grossly erred in holding that the Appellant has a Permanent Establishment ('PE') in the nature of fixed place PE in India in terms of Article 5(1) of the India - UAE tax treaty while doing so:- 6.1 The Ld. AO/DRP has erred on facts & in law, in attributing

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai, Maharastra

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2355/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

AO/DRP has grossly erred in holding that the Appellant has a Permanent Establishment ('PE') in the nature of fixed place PE in India in terms of Article 5(1) of the India - UAE tax treaty while doing so:- 6.1 The Ld. AO/DRP has erred on facts & in law, in attributing

Lion Services Ltd., Delhi vs. Addl JCIT, Ludhiyana

In the result, impugned assessment order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1711/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

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)

assessment orders for AY 2010-11, 2018-19 and 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 to hold that the assessee has fixed place PE in India. The AO heavily placed reliance on the reply of DMRC dated 23.12.2022 in SA No. 311 to 315/Del/2025 (A.Y.s

International Air Transport Association (Canada), Mumbai vs. ACIT (It), Range 2 (2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly Ground No. 3 to 7 are allowed

ITA 7117/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Shri DiveshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234A

Permanent Establishment (DAPE) which is now the case before us. As we have seen earlier, the provisions of DAPE override the provisions regarding fixed place PE, and, therefore, any observations made in the context of fixed place PE do not apply to the DAPE situations. As regards the reference

International Air Association (Canada), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (International Taxation) Range 2 (2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly Ground No. 3 to 7 are allowed

ITA 7072/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Shri DiveshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234A

Permanent Establishment (DAPE) which is now the case before us. As we have seen earlier, the provisions of DAPE override the provisions regarding fixed place PE, and, therefore, any observations made in the context of fixed place PE do not apply to the DAPE situations. As regards the reference

Internatinal Air Transport Association (Canada), Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly Ground No. 3 to 7 are allowed

ITA 7416/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Shri DiveshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234A

Permanent Establishment (DAPE) which is now the case before us. As we have seen earlier, the provisions of DAPE override the provisions regarding fixed place PE, and, therefore, any observations made in the context of fixed place PE do not apply to the DAPE situations. As regards the reference

DCIT Corporate Circle 3 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee & Revenue for AYs 2011-

ITA 3024/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishit (Tp) A No.3/Chny/2018 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S.Vestas Wind Technology- India Pvt. Ltd., No.298, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aaaca 9274 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dy. Commissioner- Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.3024/Chny/2019 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner- Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai. V. M/S.Vestas Wind Technology- India Pvt. Ltd., No.298, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aaaca 9274 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Shri N.V.Balaji, Adv. : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : 08.10.2024 : 31.12.2024 It (Tp) A No.3/Chny/2018 For Ay 2011-12 &

Section 144CSection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

this payment would qualify as 'business profits' or not. If so, then whether the parent company had any permanent establishment in India viz., fixed place PE, agency PE, service PE etc. or not. The Tribunal accordingly noted that these factual aspects had not been looked into by the lower authorities