India: Taxability of procurement activities undertaken by a liaison office

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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


India: Taxability of procurement activities undertaken by a liaison office

The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) in the case of Columbia Sportswear Company [2011-TII-21-ARA-INTL], adjudicated on the taxability of procurement activity undertaken by a non-resident company through its liaison office (LO) in India.

The taxpayer, a US company (US Co) engaged in worldwide wholesaling and retailing of outdoor apparel, set up a LO in India to act as a liaison for the purchase of the goods in India. The LO also assisted the US Co in procuring goods from Egypt and Bangladesh. The Indian Tax Law (ITL) provides for an exemption from income attributable to business operations in India, where the activity of a nonresident is limited to purchase of goods for the purpose of export (purchase exclusion). Also, under most tax treaties, a place of business maintained solely for the purpose of purchasing goods, or activities that are preparatory or auxiliary in nature, does not create a taxable presence/permanent establishment (PE) for the non-resident enterprise. The issue before the AAR was to determine whether the LO of US Co would come within the purview of the purchase exclusion under the ITL or not create a PE under the applicable India-US tax treaty. Based on the facts of the case, the AAR observed that the activities of the LO are not used solely for purchasing goods, but it is practically involved in all the activities connected with the business of the US Co. The worldwide outdoor apparel business of the US Co broadly covered: designing; purchasing of raw material; getting goods manufactured; selling the goods. Other than the actual function of sale, all the other activities of US Co are conducted by the LO. Further, the LO is also engaged in carrying out similar activities for US Co in other countries. Since the LOs activities are not limited to the purchase of goods in India for the purpose of export, the purchase exclusion would not apply under the ITL. Under the treaty, the activity profile of the LO cannot be termed as preparatory or auxiliary to US Co's business, nor can the LO be a place of business solely for the purpose of purchasing goods. Therefore, the LO would create a PE in India for US Co. Accordingly, the income attributable to US Co's operations in India from the business of designing, manufacturing and selling the products imported, would be taxable in India in accordance with the provisions of the tax treaty.

Rajendra Nayak (rajendra.nayak@in.ey.com) & Ganesh Pai (ganesh.pai@in.ey.com)

Ernst & Young

Tel: +91 80 2224 5646

Fax: +91 80 2224 0695

Website: www.ey.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The recently formed firm has taken a break from hiring EY talent to expand its transactional tax and tax technology capabilities
The AI platform, founded last year by two school friends, is partnering with challenger firms like Unity Advisory and A&M Tax to launch its own assault on the AI tax market
Not only has Aurtus received recognition from ITR in the past, but its founder was both a partner at KPMG and co-founder of Dhruva Advisors
Clients care more about considered counsel than rapid media-friendly soundbites, says Matthew Gilleard, associate director at Infinite
It was also a memorable night for Galicia, KPMG, Skadden and Pinheiro Neto, all of which scooped major awards at a gala ceremony in New York
The former Deloitte UK CEO earned a 45% raise in a year when 1,000 staff reportedly lost their jobs – and the pay gap is only getting bigger
In a seminal development for big law, the 95-year-old firm is set to cease operations after a series of high-profile partner departures
UK Chancellor John Healey extended a VAT cut, suspended tariffs, increased a bank surcharge and vowed to increase funding for HMRC
Kristine Riisberg warned that TP decisions can determine top-up tax exposure under pillar two, while global consensus over the rules remains unsettled
Both Germany’s NIS2 and the EU AI Act now determine whether a tax function can meet its obligations – and both can make management personally accountable
Gift this article