← All Phrases

“dependent agent PE”

International TaxDTAA Article 5DTAA Article 5172 judgments

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

Leading authorities on dependent agent 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.

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.

National Petroleum Construction Company v. DIT
383 ITR 648 · 2016 · High Court
69
citing judgments

An Indian agent providing marketing services, without the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of a foreign company, does not constitute a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) for the foreign company in India under DTAA provisions.

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.

Delmas France v. Asstt. DIT (IT)
17 Taxmann.com 91 · 2012 · ITAT
49
citing judgments

The ITAT evaluates the profit neutrality theory for a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE), stating that unlike a service PE, a DAPE assumes entrepreneurship risk which must be considered for arm's length remuneration.

DIT v. Galileo International Inc.
224 CTR 251 · High Court
37
citing judgments

If the income attributable to a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India is less than the remuneration paid to a dependent agent, the assessment is extinguished and no further computation of income is required.

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.

Western Union Financial Services Inc. v. ADIT
104 ITD 34 · 2007 · ITAT
26
citing judgments

Software installed in India granting access to an assessee's mainframe located outside India does not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Agents are not considered to have an agency PE if they are not economically dependent on the assessee and lack the authority to conclude contracts.

Judgments citing dependent agent 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

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

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

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

were used by NCR India in its manufacturing business and thus, the allegation made by the learned AO regarding NCR India being a dependent agent PE of the Appellant is erroneous and without any basis. 5. Learned AO/Hon'ble DRP has failed to discharge the burden of proof while arbitrarily

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

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 in holding that ... 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'), operates a Digital Platform

General Reinsurance Ag, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internatonal Taxation)-Range 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 887/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

General Reinsurance Ag, Cologne, Germany vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) Circle - 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4691/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

General Reinsurance Ag, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internatonal Taxation)-Range 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2448/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

General Reinsurance Ag, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Range 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2447/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Limited (Formerly Known As Kyocera Mita Asia Limited), Hongkong vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Intt Tax 2(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1664/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

assessment order as well as the Remand report of the AO, treated the Indian subsidiary M/s Kyocera Documents Solution India Pvt. Ltd. as Dependent Agent PE of the assessee in India, applying the provisions contained under article 5(5) of India Hongkong tax treaty. The AO thereafter attributed ... sale agreement are similar to that of any standard distributor contract with third party agents and alleged that KDID is a dependent agent PE of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer has held that the assessee has a project office in India. The Assessing Officer relied on the judgment

Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Limited, Hong Kong vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 2(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 380/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

assessment order as well as the Remand report of the AO, treated the Indian subsidiary M/s Kyocera Documents Solution India Pvt. Ltd. as Dependent Agent PE of the assessee in India, applying the provisions contained under article 5(5) of India Hongkong tax treaty. The AO thereafter attributed ... sale agreement are similar to that of any standard distributor contract with third party agents and alleged that KDID is a dependent agent PE of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer has held that the assessee has a project office in India. The Assessing Officer relied on the judgment

Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Ltd., (Formerly Known As Kyocera Mita Asia Limited), Hong Kong vs. ACIT, Circle International Tax 2(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3546/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

assessment order as well as the Remand report of the AO, treated the Indian subsidiary M/s Kyocera Documents Solution India Pvt. Ltd. as Dependent Agent PE of the assessee in India, applying the provisions contained under article 5(5) of India Hongkong tax treaty. The AO thereafter attributed ... sale agreement are similar to that of any standard distributor contract with third party agents and alleged that KDID is a dependent agent PE of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer has held that the assessee has a project office in India. The Assessing Officer relied on the judgment

The Uk Trade Desk Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Int.Tax)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, various sub grounds of ground no

ITA 2038/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) The Uk Trade Desk Ltd. Acit (International Taxation-4(3)(1), 10Th Floor, 1 Bartholomew Close, Vs Mumbai, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, London, United Kingdom. [Pan No. Aahct6320Q] Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 254(1)Section 9(1)(i)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

General Reinsurance Corporation, United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Ground No

ITA 1817/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) General Reinsurance Corporation Acit (International Taxation), 1209, Orange Street Delaware, Vs Circle -2(3)(2), Mumbai Room No. 610, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Wilmington, United States, 19801 Usa Bhavan, G Block, Bandrakurla Complex, Bandra (East), [Pan:Aahcg8162B] Mumbai-400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 9(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

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

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

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

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 assessee did not have a dependent agent PE (DAPE) in India by observing that the transaction between the assessee and ESPN India is limited to conferring of right to distribute the channels of ESPN Star

Lm Wind Power As, Denmark vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4280/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271ASection 44DSection 5Section 92C

accepted that employees of the Assessee concluded contracts on behalf of LM India, the same would imply that the Assessee constitutes Dependent Agent PE of LM India in Denmark and not vice versa. 4. Name of Mr. Arun Sasidharan, on Purchase Order issued by Siemens Gamesa Renewables Power Private Limited

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India, whether as fixed place

ITA 4092/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 144CSection 9(1)(i)

conspicuously absent. 33. The allegation that SRIB and SRGBS constitute a dependent agency permanent establishment of the assessee is equally unsustainable. For a dependent agent PE to arise, the agent in the source country must habitually conclude contracts on behalf of the foreign enterprise or habitually play the principal role

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that the assessee does not have

ITA 3178/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
Section 144CSection 9(1)(i)

conspicuously absent. 33. The allegation that SRIB and SRGBS constitute a dependent agency permanent establishment of the assessee is equally unsustainable. For a dependent agent PE to arise, the agent in the source country must habitually conclude contracts on behalf of the foreign enterprise or habitually play the principal role

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, Stafford, United Kingdom vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 3(1)(1)Del, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms aforesaid

ITA 2042/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23] Uk Grid Solutions Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income St Leonards Building, Harry Tax, Circle International Taxation Kerr Dive, Stafford St16 1Wt, Vs -3(1)(1), Civic Centre, Minto Road United Kingdom-99999 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaica6271A Assessee/Appellant Revenue/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

India 5. Single composite contract was artificially split into three separate contracts 6. There exists fixed place PE in India 7. There exists dependent agent PE in India 7. There exists Construction PE in India 8. No evidence brought on record by AO for existence of PE 9. Attribution ... Onshore project activities. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee has installation Permanent Establishment (in short ‘PE’), fixed place PE and a dependent agent PE in India. Thus, the Assessing Officer attributed business profits to PE under India-UK DTAA. Further, the Assessing Officer held that Offshore receipts of Rs.23

Ncr Global Solutions Limited, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(2), International Tax, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1885/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

view that CIPL, since, works mainly or wholly on behalf of the assessee, it has to be treated as dependent agent PE of the assessee in India. Having held so, he proceeded to attribute profits to the said PE and accordingly, brought assessee's receipts to tax in India. Contesting ... case in assessment year 2021-22, under identical facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has held that CIPL cannot be treated as the dependent agent PE of the assessee. In this context, he drew our attention to the observations made by the Coordinate Bench in the said order. 7 Learned

Ge Global Parts & Products Gmbh, Switzerland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(3)(1), Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1932/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ge Global Parts & Products Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Gmbh, Brown Boverit Strasse Income Tax, Circle 8, Baden, Switzerland International Taxation 1(3)(1) Pan: Aagcg3668K Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 285

judicial precedents cited before us. The short issue arising for consideration is whether the assessee had a PE, either fixed place PE or dependent agent PE, in India during the year under consideration. No doubt, the past assessment history of the assessee reveals that existence of PE in India ... impugned assessment year, it has to be concluded that the assessee did not have any PE, either fixed place PE or dependent agent PE, in India in the year under consideration. We again reiterate, our aforesaid conclusion is purely based on the facts involved in the impugned assessment year

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)

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 of Warner Bros. Pictures (India) Private Limited (WBPIPL") and has grossly erred in holding that

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

business of SMC in India. 10.5 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in alleging that SMC also had dependent agent PE in India since the nominee directors were taking commercial decisions in the interest of SMC. 10.6 That the assessing officer erred on facts