Indian Authority for Advance Rulings rules on PE and income characterisation
International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Indian Authority for Advance Rulings rules on PE and income characterisation

Sponsored by


Litigation in respect of when a non-resident has a permanent establishment (PE) in India has always been a contentious issue.

Despite several years of jurisprudence on the subject, the gap between the taxpayers' and the revenue authority's position on this subject is still quite wide. This is reflected in a recent ruling of the Authority on Advance Rulings (AAR) on certain questions raised by MasterCard Asia Pacific (MAPL).

MasterCard Asia Pacific (a Singapore resident) carried out transaction processing and payment-related activities across several countries for its global customers through a worldwide network. It inter alia entered into agreements with banks and financial institutions in India (customers) under which it received transaction processing fees, and assessment fees for building and maintaining a network and other ancillary revenues. It also had a subsidiary in India called MasterCard India Services (MISPL).

The key factors considered in the ruling, and the conclusions drawn by the AAR based on such factors are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1



Fixed place PE

• MasterCard interface processors (MIPs) owned by MISPL were placed at the customer’s location;

• The processing of transactions took place through the MasterCard Worldwide Network, which comprises MIPs, transmission towers, leased lines, cables, nodes, internet and application software;

• The preliminary functions were undertaken by the Bank of India, whereas the processing and settlement was carried out outside India; and

• Functions and risks that were earlier conducted overseas were now conducted by MISPL.

• MAPL has a fixed place PE in India because of the presence of MIPs;

• The AAR also ruled that the use of the MasterCard network for substantial transaction processing functions like authorisation, clearance and settlement would constitute a fixed place PE because it was secured, maintained and managed by MAPL. Further, the application software embedded in the network was owned and controlled by MAPL. Again, MIPs that are part of the network were at the disposal of MAPL. Thus, the MasterCard network constitutes a fixed place PE for MAPL in India;

• The premises of the banks constitute a fixed place PE for MAPL in India; and

• MISPL also constitutes a PE for MAPL in India.

Service PE

• MAPL’s employees visited India from time to time for obtaining customer feedback, etc.

• Employees of MAPL visiting India for business meetings constitutes a service PE in India.

Dependent agent PE (DAPE)

• Marketing support activities were performed by MISPL for MAPL.

• MISPL constitutes a DAPE of MAPL in India on account of ‘habitually securing orders’ wholly for MAPL.

Income classification

• A licence to use trade marks and marks was granted by MAPL to its customers in India. Customers were also using software as well as intellectual property in MIPs and the network.

• A portion of the fees received by MAPL would be classified as royalty under the India-Singapore tax treaty.

The AAR also held that functions performed, assets deployed, and risks undertaken (FAR) by MISPL were not fully captured in its FAR profile and hence a further profit attribution could be considered.

While determination of a PE is a factual exercise, the ruling throws light on critical aspects to be considered for evaluating the existence of a PE. This ruling may have far reaching implications for business models/arrangements where a substantial part of business is carried through digital/e-commerce platforms without any significant human intervention. One may also expect this ruling to be taken in further appeal to the High Court. While the ruling of the AAR is binding only on the applicant, nonetheless, the taxpayers would need to critically assess the impact of this ruling on their business models/arrangements.

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Burrowes had initially been parachuted into the role last summer to navigate the fallout from the firm’s tax leaks scandal
Barbara Voskamp is bullish on hiring local talent to boost DLA Piper’s Singapore practice, and argues that ‘big four’ accountants suffer from a stifled creativity
Chris Jordan also said that nations have a duty to scrutinise the partnership structures of major firms, while, in other news, a number of tax teams expanded their benches
KPMG has exclusive access to the tool for three years in the UK, giving it an edge over ‘big four’ rivals
But the US tax agency’s advice is consistent with OECD guidance and shouldn’t surprise anyone, other experts tell ITR
A survey of more than 25,000 in-house counsel reveals that diversity initiatives are a high priority when choosing external counsel
The report is aimed at helping 'low-capacity countries', the OECD has claimed
The UK tax agency appears to be going after easier, lower value targets, one lawyer has claimed
Criminal experts have told ITR that the case of Ulf Johannemann emphasises the fine line between tax avoidance and tax evasion
The ATO workers were among nearly 57,000 people who were duped into claiming fake GST refunds, while Kuwait signed a double taxation treaty with the UAE
Gift this article