← All Phrases

“agency PE”

International TaxDTAA Article 5DTAA Article 5218 judgments

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

Leading authorities on agency 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.

Set Satellite Pte Ltd. v. CIT
307 ITR 205 · 2008 · High Court
96
citing judgments

If a Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment (DAPE) is remunerated at arm's length based on transfer pricing principles, no further profits can be attributed to the foreign enterprise. The principles of profit attribution under DTAA Article 7 are pari-materia to Section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

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.

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.

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.

4) DIT v. B4U International
374 ITR 453 · 2015 · High Court
39
citing judgments

An agent is considered independent for the purposes of Article 5(5) of the India-Mauritius treaty if the agent works for more than one principal, regardless of whether the principal has only one agent in India. The focus is on the agent's independence, not the principal's exclusive use of an agent.

Co. Ltd. v. DDIT(IT)
55 Taxmann.com 520 · 2015 · ITAT
36
citing judgments

A foreign company engaged in the reinsurance business is not considered to have a fixed permanent establishment or an agency permanent establishment in India through its Indian subsidiary, provided specific conditions under Article 5 of the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement are not met.

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 agency PE

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle International Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 884/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

merely an extended arm. And thus the Ld. Tax Authorities have fallen in error in considering the associate M/s. ALSTOM-I to be Agency PE. It was submitted that there was no legal and financial dependency between the assessee and its associates. 9.4 Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the assessee

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2240/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

merely an extended arm. And thus the Ld. Tax Authorities have fallen in error in considering the associate M/s. ALSTOM-I to be Agency PE. It was submitted that there was no legal and financial dependency between the assessee and its associates. 9.4 Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the assessee

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2239/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

merely an extended arm. And thus the Ld. Tax Authorities have fallen in error in considering the associate M/s. ALSTOM-I to be Agency PE. It was submitted that there was no legal and financial dependency between the assessee and its associates. 9.4 Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the assessee

Ge Hydro France, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2086/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 44B

Hydro France an extended arm. And thus the Ld. Tax Authorities have fallen in error in considering the associate M/s. ALSTOM-I to be Agency PE. It was submitted that there was no legal and financial dependency between the assessee and its associates. 9.4 Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that

Ge Hydro France, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2085/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 44B

Hydro France an extended arm. And thus the Ld. Tax Authorities have fallen in error in considering the associate M/s. ALSTOM-I to be Agency PE. It was submitted that there was no legal and financial dependency between the assessee and its associates. 9.4 Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that

Amadeus It Group Sa, Spain vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3175/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B.Vasanta, CIT-DR

providing the hardware support to travel agents and, therefore, profits from such functions were required to be attributed to the appellant's dependent agency PE in India. 7. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing expenditure of Euro 3,574,000/- incurred

Sabre Glbl Inc., New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle- 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6040/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 216/Del/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 559/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4838/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 7724/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 6040/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Sabre Glbl Inc. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Tax, Adv. Circle-3(1)(2), C/O. Ms Associates, International Tax F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sabre Glbl Inc. Income Tax, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. International Taxation, C/O. Ms Associates, New Delhi F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

used for exploration or exploitation of natural resources it cannot per se be treated as a PE”. 18. In regard to the agency PE it was submitted that subsequent to 2005 there is no role of NMD who was sole distributor and there is no Sitar arrangement. Referring ... India there was a business connection. It was also submitted that ITA No. 216 & Ors. Sabre GLBL Inc. 17 DRP has not examined the Agency PE. 24. Findings; Now giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions and the matter on record. The bench is of considered view that the vital question

Sabre Glbl Inc., New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle- 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7724/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 216/Del/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 559/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4838/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 7724/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 6040/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Sabre Glbl Inc. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Tax, Adv. Circle-3(1)(2), C/O. Ms Associates, International Tax F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sabre Glbl Inc. Income Tax, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. International Taxation, C/O. Ms Associates, New Delhi F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

used for exploration or exploitation of natural resources it cannot per se be treated as a PE”. 18. In regard to the agency PE it was submitted that subsequent to 2005 there is no role of NMD who was sole distributor and there is no Sitar arrangement. Referring ... India there was a business connection. It was also submitted that ITA No. 216 & Ors. Sabre GLBL Inc. 17 DRP has not examined the Agency PE. 24. Findings; Now giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions and the matter on record. The bench is of considered view that the vital question

Sabre Glbl Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 559/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 216/Del/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 559/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4838/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 7724/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 6040/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Sabre Glbl Inc. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Tax, Adv. Circle-3(1)(2), C/O. Ms Associates, International Tax F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sabre Glbl Inc. Income Tax, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. International Taxation, C/O. Ms Associates, New Delhi F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

used for exploration or exploitation of natural resources it cannot per se be treated as a PE”. 18. In regard to the agency PE it was submitted that subsequent to 2005 there is no role of NMD who was sole distributor and there is no Sitar arrangement. Referring ... India there was a business connection. It was also submitted that ITA No. 216 & Ors. Sabre GLBL Inc. 17 DRP has not examined the Agency PE. 24. Findings; Now giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions and the matter on record. The bench is of considered view that the vital question

Sabre Glbl Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Circle- 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4838/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 216/Del/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 559/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4838/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 7724/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 6040/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Sabre Glbl Inc. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Tax, Adv. Circle-3(1)(2), C/O. Ms Associates, International Tax F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sabre Glbl Inc. Income Tax, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. International Taxation, C/O. Ms Associates, New Delhi F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

used for exploration or exploitation of natural resources it cannot per se be treated as a PE”. 18. In regard to the agency PE it was submitted that subsequent to 2005 there is no role of NMD who was sole distributor and there is no Sitar arrangement. Referring ... India there was a business connection. It was also submitted that ITA No. 216 & Ors. Sabre GLBL Inc. 17 DRP has not examined the Agency PE. 24. Findings; Now giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions and the matter on record. The bench is of considered view that the vital question

Sabre Inc, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 216/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 216/Del/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 559/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4838/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 7724/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 6040/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Sabre Glbl Inc. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Tax, Adv. Circle-3(1)(2), C/O. Ms Associates, International Tax F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sabre Glbl Inc. Income Tax, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. International Taxation, C/O. Ms Associates, New Delhi F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

used for exploration or exploitation of natural resources it cannot per se be treated as a PE”. 18. In regard to the agency PE it was submitted that subsequent to 2005 there is no role of NMD who was sole distributor and there is no Sitar arrangement. Referring ... India there was a business connection. It was also submitted that ITA No. 216 & Ors. Sabre GLBL Inc. 17 DRP has not examined the Agency PE. 24. Findings; Now giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions and the matter on record. The bench is of considered view that the vital question

DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi vs. M/S. Sabre Glbl Inc., Gurgaon

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6731/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 216/Del/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 559/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4838/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 7724/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 6040/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Sabre Glbl Inc. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Tax, Adv. Circle-3(1)(2), C/O. Ms Associates, International Tax F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sabre Glbl Inc. Income Tax, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. International Taxation, C/O. Ms Associates, New Delhi F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

used for exploration or exploitation of natural resources it cannot per se be treated as a PE”. 18. In regard to the agency PE it was submitted that subsequent to 2005 there is no role of NMD who was sole distributor and there is no Sitar arrangement. Referring ... India there was a business connection. It was also submitted that ITA No. 216 & Ors. Sabre GLBL Inc. 17 DRP has not examined the Agency PE. 24. Findings; Now giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions and the matter on record. The bench is of considered view that the vital question

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3254/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Us, It Has Been Stated That This Issue Stands Covered By The Decision Of The Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case For The A.Y.2018-19 & 2019-20 Which Has Followed Earlier Three Tribunal Orders.

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 9

discussions, we hold that the assessee did not have a fixed place permanent establishment in India, that the question of assessee having a dependent agency PE is wholly academic in the sense that, as the law stands now, the existence of the DAPE is wholly tax neutral in India. Accordingly

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-Circle -4(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are allowed

ITA 1492/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270Section 9(1)(i)

Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd, India Branch (SRIB) and Swiss Reinsurance Global Business Solutions India Private Limited (SRGBS) constitute Fixed Place PE, Service PE and Agency PE of the Appellant in India under the IS treaty. 2.2 The learned AO has erred in holding that the third party Indian cedents ... relation to the facts of the Appellant and consequently, erred in holding that SRIB and SRGBS constitute Fixed Place PE, Service PE and Agency PE of the Appellant in India. 2 3.2 The learned AO has failed to consider that the facts pertaining to the retrocession premium and reinsurance premium

The Dy. DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Atl Media Limited (As A Successor to Expand Fast Holdings Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3880/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2024AY 2003-2004
For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate with Shri Jai BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 9(1)(i)

after placing reliance on the decision in the case of SET Satellite (Singapore)PTE Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) held that where assessee had Dependent Agency PE (DAPE), if Indian agent was paid arm's length remuneration, nothing further could be taxed in the hands of assessee

Atl Media Limited (As A Successor to Expand Fast Holdings Ltd.), Mumbai vs. The ITO (It) 3(1), Mumbai

ITA 3149/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2024AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआ.अ.सं.4479/मुं/2006 (नि. व.2002-03)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate withFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 9(1)(i)

after placing reliance on the decision in the case of SET Satellite (Singapore)PTE Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) held that where assessee had Dependent Agency PE (DAPE), if Indian agent was paid arm's length remuneration, nothing further could be taxed in the hands of assessee

ADIT (I.T) - 1(2), Mumbai vs. Atl Media Limited (As A Successor to Expand Fast Holdings Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 4631/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2024AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआ.अ.सं.4479/मुं/2006 (नि. व.2002-03)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate withFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 9(1)(i)

after placing reliance on the decision in the case of SET Satellite (Singapore)PTE Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) held that where assessee had Dependent Agency PE (DAPE), if Indian agent was paid arm's length remuneration, nothing further could be taxed in the hands of assessee

Atl Media Limited (As A Successor to Expand Fast Holdings Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DDIT (I.T.) - 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 4479/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2024AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआ.अ.सं.4479/मुं/2006 (नि. व.2002-03)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate withFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 9(1)(i)

after placing reliance on the decision in the case of SET Satellite (Singapore)PTE Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) held that where assessee had Dependent Agency PE (DAPE), if Indian agent was paid arm's length remuneration, nothing further could be taxed in the hands of assessee

M/S. Exl Service.Com Llc, Mumbai vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5628/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

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

service PE does not arise since the foreign company is not rendering any services to any customer in India. On the issue of agency PE, the Supreme Court observed that since there is no factual finding as to whether and how e-Funds India was authorized to or exercised ... authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the US company, the US company cannot be said to constitute agency PE in India in terms of Article 5(4) of the India US Tax Treaty. The Supreme Court further held that since the transactions between the US company and Indian subsidiary

M/S. Exl Service.Com Llc, Mumbai vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5627/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

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

service PE does not arise since the foreign company is not rendering any services to any customer in India. On the issue of agency PE, the Supreme Court observed that since there is no factual finding as to whether and how e-Funds India was authorized to or exercised ... authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the US company, the US company cannot be said to constitute agency PE in India in terms of Article 5(4) of the India US Tax Treaty. The Supreme Court further held that since the transactions between the US company and Indian subsidiary