India rules on profits attributed to permanent establishments

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

India rules on profits attributed to permanent establishments

A tribunal in India has ruled that payment of the arm’s length price to a dependent agent does not remove the tax liability of a foreign entities’ permanent establishment in India.

The Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate made this decision following a case against Rolls Royce.

The case dates back to 2007 when the tribunal ruled that Rolls Royce had a business connection and permanent establishment in India and that 35% of the global profits from sales made in India were attributable to Rolls Royce in India.

Rolls Royce contested this decision on the grounds that payment of the arm’s-length price to the dependent agent in India would eliminate the company's tax liability having a foreign entity in India. It also challenged the fact that the Revenue had attributed profit to the permanent establishment and taxed the profits.

The company also contended that the Delhi Tribunal had ignored Madras High Court’s ruling in the case of Annamalais Timber Trust & Co which stated that 10% of profits are to be considered as profits to be attributed to India.

After considering Rolls Royce's arguments, the tribunal held that the tax liability of the non-resident in India could be eliminated only where the profits attributable to the permanent establishment equal the payments to the agent in India.

It was also decided that Rolls Royce’s transfer pricing analysis did not adequately reflect the functions performed and risks assumed by the agent and they would need to attribute profits to the permanent establishment for the risks and functions that were not considered in the analysis for determining the arm’s-length price.

A press release by KPMG's tax group in India said: “This decision has reiterated that income attribution for PE in India would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.”

It was decided that if some activities are carried out outside India for which no profit could be attributable to the activities in India, then such profit could not be taxed there.

Similarly, losses arising from activities carried out outside India should not be considered while computing the profit. Since the activities of Rolls Royce in India consist of marketing and sales, expenses should be reduced while R&D activities which result in losses to the appellant (which are not carried out in India) should be ignored while computing global profits to be attributed to the Indian operations.

Rolls Royce was unavailable for comment at the time of press.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Burford Capital said it hopes that the US Congress will not ‘set back’ business growth and innovation by introducing a tax on litigation funding profits
The new framework simplifies the process of relocating eligible employees to Luxembourg and offers a ‘clear and streamlined benefit’, says Alexandra Clouté of Ashurst
The Portuguese firm’s managing partner tells ITR about his love of Sporting Lisbon, the stress of his '24-hour role', and why tax is never boring
The reduction would still ‘leave room’ for pillar two and further reductions would be possible, one expert tells ITR
Funding from private equity house EQT will propel WTS Germany to compete with the ‘big four’, the firm’s leaders told ITR in an extensive interview
New Zealand is bucking the trend of its international counterparts with its investment-friendly visa approach. Here’s what high-net-worth investors need to know
However, nearly 10% of reports only disclosed activities in tax havens, according to the Fair Tax Foundation; in other news, Plante Moran sealed a US east coast merger
While pillar one is still alive, it will apply to a smaller group of companies, Brian Foley also told ITR
Tax teams that centralise and automate their pillar two data will have a much easier time during reporting season, says Hank Moonen, CEO of TaxModel
While GCCs drive efficiency for multinationals, they also present a host of TP risks that should be considered carefully
Gift this article