“service PE”

International TaxDTAA Article 5DTAA Article 5225 judgments

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

Leading authorities on service 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.

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).

National Petroleum Construction Company v. DIT

383 ITR 648 · 2016 · High Court

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

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.

CIT(A) v. Eon Technology Pvt. Ltd.

343 ITR 366 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Payments to a non-resident agent for services rendered outside India, where the agent has no permanent establishment (PE) or business connection in India, are not chargeable to tax in India. Consequently, there is no obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195, and no disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) can be made.

Delmas France v. Asstt. DIT (IT)

17 Taxmann.com 91 · 2012 · ITAT

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. HCL Infosystems Ltd.

144 Taxmann 492 · 2005 · High Court

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

116 ITD 1 · 2009 · ITAT

citing judgments

Income is chargeable to tax in India only to the extent it is reasonably attributable to operations carried out in India, especially when the amounts paid to associated enterprises are at arm's length.

Judgments citing service PE

Micro Focus Software Inc. (Formerly Known As Novell Inc.), Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT (Intl. Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 891/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

amount of income attributable to such PE. It was ruled that MSAS should be regarded as constituting a service PE under Article 5(2)(1). On the second question the AAR ruled that the transactional net margin method (TNMM) was the most appropriate method for the determination ... Software Inc. (Formerly known as Novell Inc.) ITA no.891/Mum./2023 question of deputation, the Court held that on the facts that there is a service PE under Article 5(2)(1) and as such held that the Department was right in its contention that there exists a PE in India

Micro Focus Software Inc. (Earlier Known As Novell Inc.), Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT (Intl. Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2425/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(5)

amount of income attributable to such PE. It was ruled that MSAS should be regarded as constituting a service PE under Article 5(2)(1). On the second question the AAR ruled that the transactional net margin method (TNMM) was the most appropriate method for the determination ... would fall under Article 5(2)(1). Dealing with the question of deputation, the Court held that on the facts that there is a service PE Page No. | 22 ITA NOs. 2424 & 2425/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2019-20 & 2018-19) Micro Focus Software Inc., under Article 5(2)(1) and as such

Micro Focus Software Inc. (Earlier Known As Novell Inc.), Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT (Intl. Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2424/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(5)

amount of income attributable to such PE. It was ruled that MSAS should be regarded as constituting a service PE under Article 5(2)(1). On the second question the AAR ruled that the transactional net margin method (TNMM) was the most appropriate method for the determination ... would fall under Article 5(2)(1). Dealing with the question of deputation, the Court held that on the facts that there is a service PE Page No. | 22 ITA NOs. 2424 & 2425/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2019-20 & 2018-19) Micro Focus Software Inc., under Article 5(2)(1) and as such

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Co, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 1022/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blerga International Reinsurance V. Dcit (International Taxation) -4(1)(1) Room No. 172, 17Th Floor Company Designated Activity Air India Building, Nariman Point Company Mumbai – 400 021 C/O. S.R.B.C & Associates Llp 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aadcr1226K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.S. Paridiwala & Ms. Jasmin Amalasadvala Department Represented By : Ms. Surabhi Sharma

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

take into account 'all the risks of the foreign enterprise as assumed by the PE', but then in an agency PE situation, unlike a service PE situation which was the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a DAPE assumes the entrepreneurship risk in respect of which agent can never

Valvoline Cummins Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Special Range-9, New Delhi

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

ITA 2035/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

1 Valvoline Cummins Pvt.Ltd. Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH : “F” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE DR. B

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

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

ITA 961/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

decisions in the interest of SMC. 15.6. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in alleging that the assessee also had service PE in India alleging that the nominee directors were rendering managerial services on behalf of SMC to the assessee. 15.7. Without prejudice, the assessing officer ... erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that there is no concept of service PE under the Treaty. 15.8. Without prejudice, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in computing the profits attributable to the alleged PE of SMC in India

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1507/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

M.K Rajendran Pillai, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 586/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोचीन पीठ, कोचीन म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN माननीय %ी सतबीर िसंह गोदारा

M.K Rajendran Pillai, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 585/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

M.K Rajendran Pillai, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 584/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

M.K Rajendran Pillai, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 583/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

M.K Rajendran Pillai, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 582/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

M.K Rajendran Pillai, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 581/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

M.K Rajendran Pillai, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 580/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

DCIT, Circle- 1(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed, whereas,

ITA 7782/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 9(1)(vi)

establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article 5 of the DTAA. Proceeding further, he held that the assessee had a fixed place PE, service PE and dependent agent PE. In the aforesaid premises, the Assessing Officer computed profit of Rs.111,49,67,544/- as attributable to the PE ... deciding the appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the submissions of the assessee that the assessee does not have a dependent agent PE and service PE in India. However, he held that the assessee had a fixed place PE in India. With regard to attribution of profit to the PE

Sr Technics Switzerland Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It)-4(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6616/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyals.R. Technics Switzerland Limited. C/O. B-206, Citipoint, A.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059. Pan: Aalcs3475M ...... Appellant Vs. Acit (International Taxation), Range- 4(2) (2), Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Dhanesh Bafna / Sh. Pratik Shah Respondent By : Ms. Surabhi Sharma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/11/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Acit(It-4(2)(2), Mumbai, [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Acit’] Dated 24.09.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144(C)(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Dhanesh Bafna / Sh. Pratik ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 245Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)

circumstances of the - case and in law, the learned AO and Hon'ble DRP erred in concluding that the Appellant has a Service PE in India under Article 5(2)(1) of the India - Switzerland DTAA. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the - case ... does not have a Permanent Establishment in India. 5. However, AO was of the opinion that assessee has a Liaison Office (LO) as a Service PE or Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment (DAPE), there is no option but to perforce resort to estimation of the taxable profits of the assessee

Brinks India P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Brinks Arya (India ) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cir 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7071/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V IraniFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dy CIT, Circle-8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Siemens Technology & Services P. Ltd ( Formerly Known As Siemens Information Systems Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 287/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dy CIT, Circle-8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Siemens Technology & Services P. Ltd ( Formerly Known As Siemens Information Systems Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 286/MUM/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2022AY 2003-04

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) - RG. 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 6935/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Us Are As Follows:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 9(1)(i)