All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 ITR is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

India: Delhi High Court rules on constitution of permanent establishment in outsourcing arrangements

rajendra.jpg

jain.jpg

Rajendra Nayak


Aastha Jain

E Funds Corporation and E Funds IT Solutions Inc., residents of USA (US Co), were engaged in the business of electronic payments, ATM management, decision support and risk management. E Fund India, an Indian company (I Co) and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of US Co, provided back-office support and data entry operations to US Co. The Delhi High Court adjudicated on whether a permanent establishment (PE) was created in India for US Co under India-USA tax treaty. The court observed that a subsidiary is an independent legal entity and its mere existence does not make it a PE of parent company. Factors like US Co and I Co were closely connected, I Co was dependent on US Co for earning income, intangibles were provided by US Co free of cost, US Co were deriving economic benefit by sub-contracting work/ services to I Co are not relevant for deciding on whether US Co had a PE in India. A subsidiary can become a PE of the holding company under the same circumstances where the conclusion is reached for unrelated companies. It was held that US Co had no "right to use" the premises of I Co. Even if the core activities of US Co were outsourced to I Co under sub-contract arrangement, with I Co bearing limited risk, it would not constitute a fixed place PE of US Co.

US Co had sent certain personnel to work with I Co to ensure confidentiality and quality of services provided by I Co. Such functions performed to protect the interest of US Co were stewardship services and no service PE arises from such services. Further, employees of I Co may not be considered as employees or other personnel for US Co. Any other interpretation would lead to irrational results that every subsidiary which engages an employee would always become a PE of the controlling foreign parent company. Further, since employees of I Co were not rendering any services on behalf of US Co, service PE was not constituted in India.

It was held that rendering of services to a third party by I Co on behalf of US Co would not, by itself, lead to I Co becoming a dependent agent PE. I Co did not satisfy the conditions of dependent agent PE under the tax treaty. As no PE of US Co was found to exist, no profits could be taxed in India and no income of I Co could be attributed to or taxed in the hands of US Co.

Globalisation has led many multinational enterprises to outsource business process and information technology services to affiliates in India. This decision provides guidance on issues as well as factors relevant for making a determination of PE in India in such business arrangements.

Rajendra Nayak (rajendra.nayak@in.ey.com) and Aastha Jain (aastha.jain@in.ey.com)

EY

Tel: +91 80 6727 5275

Website: www.ey.com/india

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Gorka Echevarria talks to reporter Siqalane Taho about how inflation, e-invoicing and technology are affecting the laser printing firm in a post-COVID world.
Tax directors have called on companies to better secure their data as they generate ever-increasing amounts of information due to greater government scrutiny.
Incoming amendments to the treaty could increase costs on non-resident Indian service providers.
Experts say the proposed minimum tax does not align with the OECD’s pillar two regime and risks other countries pulling out.
The Malawian government has targeted US gemstone miner Columbia Gem House, while Amgen has successfully consolidated two separate tax disputes with the Internal Revenue Service.
ITR's latest quarterly PDF is now live, leading on the rise of tax technology.
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted firms, teams, and practitioners for the 2022 Americas Tax Awards – winners to be announced on September 22
‘Care’ is the operative word as HMRC seeks to clamp down on transfer pricing breaches next year.
Tax directors tell ITR that the CRA’s clampdown on unpaid taxes on insurance premiums is causing uncertainty for businesses as they try to stay compliant.
HMRC has informed tax directors that it will impose automated assessments on online sellers with inaccurate VAT returns, in a bid to fight fraud.
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree