Skip to main content

AAR in Production Resource Group - SC in FOWC followed

PE under Article 5(1) – degree of permanence relative to the nature and requirement of business carried on -  Need not be forever

Even before the discussion on the 2017 decision of Supreme Court on FOWC could die,  the AAR in Production Resource Group [ 1330/2012 dated 8 Nov 2017] had occasion to deal with a similar issue involving a Belgian Applicant that rendered turnkey services of providing technical equipment and services for CWG events. Observing that the Applicant was allocated exclusive office under the lock and key of the Applicant and onsite space by the Owner,  the Authority found that even a limited presence for 114 days was sufficient to constitute PE under Article 5(1) as ‘the establishment need not be enduring or permanent in the sense that it should be in its control forever in order to constitute a PE and that the length of time has to be necessarily tied to the nature and requirements of the business under consideration.’  The Authority found that all ingredients of Article 5(1) were satisfied - place of business, power of disposition, permanence of location, business activity and business connection it cumulatively and collectively resulted in a PE.

The AAR rejected the alternate plea of the Department that the payment was also one of ‘Royalty’.

Comment and Analysis:

According to both Commentaries, the word ‘permanent’ does not connote in the literal sense of everlasting/forever/eternal in nature or without interruption.  Article 5(1) does not make any reference to minimum period and the duration of a basic rule PE under Art 5(1) need not be in years but may be of months only as ruled in P.No. 24 of 1996 [ Nilesh Modi].  These, coupled with the Supreme Court decision in FOWC,  appears to have led the Authority to rule in favour of PE.  In this connection, one needs to recall the Authority’s negative finding of PE in the FOWC case, which subsequently was overturned by the Delhi High Court.  The Supreme Court affirmed the existence of PE under Art 5(1) in the said case. Comment on SC on FOWC is available in this Blog.


Popular posts from this blog

Domain Name Registration Service is ‘Royalty’ – A far fetched proposition
The recent decision of the Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [2018] 92 241 (Delhi-Trib) on domain name registration service, makes interesting reading. Go Daddy, a Non-Resident Entity with accreditation to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is in the business of granting registration of domain names to Indian entities against payment of certain fee.Along with this service, the Appellant also provides services of web hosting.Go Daddy paid tax on Web Hosting Services treating it as Royalty Income, while it took a stand that domain registration fee is not taxable in India as it was neither in the nature of Royalty nor in the nature of Business Profits owing to absence of any business connection.The department’s stand before the DRP and ITAT was that domain registration service was
a. an essential requirement to access Go Daddy’s servers;b.essential, and inextricably…

Dominance of DPS Article over Sec 5(2)(a) of Domestic Law - British Gas reiterated

Dominance of DPS Article over Sec 5(2)(a) of the Domestic Law – British Gas reiterated

The AAR recently reiterated the principles of an earlier ruling in British Gas Ltd [AAR/725/2006] on taxability of salaries received in India by Non-Resident Indians.In [1]Hewlett Packard [AAR 1217 of 2011, Jan 2018], the issue before the Authority was w

Starting my own Blogpost Today

I welcome you to be part of my Blogpost which will deal with matters connected with important judgements on International Tax by Indian Courts and interesting issues on domestic taxation as well as DTAA.  Over time, I intend expanding to Trade Remedial and Protection measures under the WTO.

Welcome once again and hope to see your posts too!