International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

An intense period of lobbying and persuasion is under way as the UN secretary-general’s report on the future of international tax cooperation begins to take shape. Ralph Cunningham reports.
Fresh details of the European Commission’s state aid case against Amazon emerge, while a pension fund is suing Amgen over its tax dispute with the Internal Revenue Service.
The OECD’s rules may be impossible for businesses to manage, according to tax experts from companies including Shell.
The UK government is now committed to replacing the ‘super-deduction’ with a 100% capital allowances regime to offset the impact of the corporate tax rise to 25%.
Corporate tax is set to rise in the UK for the first time in decades, but the headline rate remains historically low despite what many observers think.
President Joe Biden’s nominee is set to be confirmed as IRS commissioner for a five-year term.
British companies are waiting to hear the details of what will replace the 130% ‘super-deduction’ next week, while Spain considers stopping a major infrastructure company moving to the Netherlands.
President Joe Biden wants to raise corporate tax and impose a higher stock buyback tax on US businesses, but his budget proposal faces insurmountable obstacles in Congress, writes Ralph Cunningham.
EY is still negotiating the terms of the plan to split its audit and consulting functions, but the future of tax services is reportedly a sticking point.
Country-by-country reporting is the best option for safe harbour provisions under the global anti-base erosion rules, according to tax directors at companies including Standard Chartered Bank and Pernod Ricard.