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 : Supreme Court rules that foreign taxpayers without current projects or PE in India can still set off expenses and depreciation aga...
Goods and Services Tax : A practical guide on how India taxes imported digital services, explaining GST under RCM and when TDS applies. Key takeaway: Buyer...
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 Supreme Court declined to condone delay, thereby upholding the High Court’s conclusion that the liaison office did not const...
Income Tax : The judgment confirms that income from offshore equipment supply is not taxable where transactions occur outside India. The liaiso...
Income Tax : The Court set aside Section 148 notices after finding no tangible evidence supporting the existence of a Permanent Establishment. ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that a Dependent Agent PE arises only if agents habitually conclude contracts or secure orders on behalf of the...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court declined to interfere where courts below found no permanent establishment in India due to offshore execution of ...
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....
Following SC’s E-Funds ruling, Delhi ITAT confirmed Concentrix US has no PE in India. The Tribunal also held that IPLC/link charges are non-taxable reimbursements, not ‘royalty’ under Article 12 of the India-US DTAA.
SC held Hyatt’s oversight of Indian hotels created a fixed-place PE, broadening disposal and continuity tests under the India–UAE tax treaty.
Delhi High Court rules purchases from foreign AEs without a PE are not taxable in India, preventing Section 40(a)(i) disallowance and upholding DTAA non-discrimination clauses.
ITAT Mumbai rules that Gemological Research (Thailand) has no PE in India; diamond grading services not taxable under India-Thailand DTAA.
The ITAT Mumbai hears arguments on whether the MLI can be applied to deny tax treaty benefits to an Irish firm without a separate protocol, in a case involving aircraft leasing.
Supreme Court ruled that a UAE company had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India due to substantive control over a hotel, making its income taxable.
What counts as “being in business” in India? When does advisory work cross the line into a taxable presence? The Hyatt International ruling is more than just another tax dispute. It is a clear reminder that in international taxation, substance prevails over form. The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s finding that Hyatt International […]
Supreme Court clarifies the scope of PE in India, ruling that Hyatt International’s operations are taxable under Indian law.
ITAT Mumbai held that set off of loss of Permanent Establishment [PE] against the interest income received from External Commercial Borrowing, on which benefit of concessional rate tax availed, is allowable. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
ITAT Delhi allows Hyosung Corporation to set off Indian Permanent Establishment (PE) business losses against Fees for Technical Services (FTS) income. The ruling clarifies that under the Income Tax Act, a foreign entity’s income is aggregated for taxation, permitting inter-head adjustments despite DTAA classifications.
