Income Tax : The guide explains how residents can avoid double taxation through DTAA benefits, Foreign Tax Credit, and Section 91 relief, outli...
Income Tax : The article explains how India has broadened Permanent Establishment and Business Connection concepts after BEPS reforms. It highl...
Income Tax : xplains how the functions performed by an Indian subsidiary are tested under Article 5 to determine whether a foreign company form...
Income Tax : The analysis explains how activities of a liaison office can trigger PE exposure despite regulatory approval. Taxability depends o...
Income Tax : Highlights how the Court ruled that consistent operational control and strategic oversight in India can establish a Fixed Place PE...
Income Tax : The OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs has proposed important and far-reaching changes to the Commentary on Article 5 (Permanent Est...
Income Tax : A host of companies from Mumbai, said to be 367 in number and mostly multinational in nature, have moved the recently set up dispu...
Income Tax : A Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement was signed between India and Tajikistan today, i.e. 20th November, 2008. The Agreement was s...
Income Tax : The Bombay High Court held that only the royalty retained after an APA adjustment is taxable, applying the doctrine of real income...
Income Tax : The Bombay High Court held that royalty refunded by a foreign company to its Indian subsidiary under an Advance Pricing Agreement ...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT ruled that no installation or supervisory PE existed in India as the activities did not exceed the 120-day threshol...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that offshore supply receipts could not be taxed under Section 44BB where the Revenue failed to prove the existe...
Income Tax : Bangalore ITAT ruled that only solar days and not cumulative man-days should be considered while determining the existence of a Pe...
Income Tax : CBDT notifies Section 206C (1G) of Income Tax Act shall not apply to a person (being a buyer) who is a non-resident & who does not...
Income Tax : Public Consultation on the proposal for amendment of Rules for Profit attribution to Permanent (PE) Establishment invited by CBDT....
DCIT Vs Michelin ROH Co. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has a company incorporated in Thailand and offers a number of services, such as, business planning and coordination, engineering services, product research and development etc. to its Indian subsidiary. On offering these engineering services, the assessee obtained a […]
Merely because a person has not deducted tax at source from a remittance abroad, it cannot be inferred that the person making a remittance has committed a failure in discharging his tax withholding obligations because such obligations come into existence only when recipient has a tax liability in India.
Whether incomes of a non-resident are taxable in India, regardless of whether the non-resident assessee has PE or Business Connection in India? There is misconception in the minds of few non-resident assessees that their income are not taxable in India if they have neither business connection nor permanent establishment in India but there are certain […]
Addl. CIT Vs Lenskart Solution (P) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) It was claimed by the Assessee that as the Assessee had made the payment to Facebook Ireland Inc. (FII), which admittedly did not have any permanent establishment (PE) in India and, therefore, the payments made to it for advertisement services were not chargeable to tax in […]
FCC Co. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT had directed the assessee to file the description of services rendered by the employees of the assessee on their visit to India and the corresponding clause under the Agreement for Dispatch of Engineers under which such services would fall. In response, the assessee furnished Annexure 1 for […]
Interest on income tax refund received by the non-resident companies shall be taxable as per the provision of Tax Treaty irrespective of the fact that whether the assessee has PE in India or not.
Since Indian subsidiary of assessee-company was operating in an independent manner and there was nothing to show that factually speaking the Indian subsidiary constituted a PE of assessee in India, therefore, AO had erred in invoking section 9 of the Act and/or Article 5 of the India-USA DTAA in order to say that the assessee company had a PE in India. Where assessee did not have a PE in India, income of assessee was not allowable to be taxed in India.
Sabre Asia Pacific Pte Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The first issue that needs to be decided is whether the assessee has a permanent establishment in India or not? This is challenged as per ground 2 of the appeal. We find that this issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of the […]
We are of the considered view that the appellant has no business connection in India in respect of supply of GSM System by the appellant to cellular operators in India and further, there is no PE in any form in India in the captioned Assessment Years and therefore, the question of attribution of profit does not arise at all.
ESPN Star Sports Mauritius Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Facts- The appellant is a partnership firm established under Mauritius Law. It is engaged in the business of selling advertisement time and programme sponsorship from Mauritius in connection with the programming via non-standard television on ESPN, Star Sports and Star Cricket programming services. During the year under […]
