The Tribunal has held that a simple maintenance of stock of goods by the foreign enterprise at the customer?s location for standby use may not constitute a PE, while keeping the issue open with regard to royalty on use of equipment.

The assessee, a division of Technical Resources Prt. Ltd. Australia, had entered into contracts with Rio Tinto India Pvt. Ltd. (“RTIPL”) for evaluation of coal deposits in Maharashtra and Orissa and for corresponding feasibility studies for transporting the same.

The Tribunal concluded that the sale of rig was precursor to the process of cessation of PE, termination of the contract and movement of equipment in international waters. The rig was situated in India when the process of sale had commenced and substantially completed. The deferral of receipt of part sale consideration and postponement of handing over of the rig was immaterial, so far as tax liability in connection with the sale of PE or its assets are concerned.

The assessee, an Australian company, set up a permanent establishment (PE) in India to render technical services for evaluation of coal deposits and conducting feasibility studies for transportation of iron ore. The AO accepted that the income was business profits under Article 7 of the DTAA

under the India UK Tax Treaty (UK Treaty) reaffirmed some general principles relating to PE, the Tribunal further ruled that the Taxpayer does not have a PE under the basic rule or the agency rule. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the first appellate authority to determine if any part of the consideration could be taxed as royalty for use of equipment by the customer.

Mumbai Ruling: In order to constitute a fixed place permanent establishment (PE), three criteria have to be satisfied viz. (a) the physical criterion (existence of physical location) (b) subjective criterion (right to use that place) and (c) functional criterion (carrying on business through that place). It is only when the three conditions are satisfied that a PE under the basic rule can be said to have come into existence. The onus is on the Revenue to show that the assessee has a PE (Airlines Rotables Limited v JDIT).

Airlines Rotables vs. JDIT (ITAT Mumbai). The assessee, a UK company, entered into an agreement with Jet Airways under which it agreed to provide Jet Airways with two segments of services, first, to carry out repairs and overhauling of aircraft components outside India and, second, to provide spares and components in the period the components were being repaired.

Recently, the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) in the case of Laird Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. [2010-TIOL-06-ARA-IT] has held that the fees received by the USA company for assigning contractual rights to the applicant for supply of products in India is taxable as business profits and in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) such consideration is not taxable in India under the India-USA tax treaty (the tax treaty). Accordingly,

A host of companies from Mumbai, said to be 367 in number and mostly multinational in nature, have moved the recently set up dispute resolution panel (DRP) to resolve issues related to cross-border taxation. An official in the I-T department said except two, all of the companies have chosen DRP instead of the conventional channel of appeal — that of approaching the commissioner (appeal).

Article 5(2)(i) of the India-Mauritius DTAA defines “permanent establishment” to include “a building site or construction or assembly project or supervisory activities in connection therewith, where such site, project or supervisory activity continues for a period of more than nine months“. The assessee, a Mauritius company, executed three contracts in India. While the period of each contract was less than 183 days, cumulatively they exceeded that period. The question arose whether in determining whether the assessee had a PE in India, the period of all contracts could be aggregated.