Article 7 of DTAA – Major issues and Recent Judicial

Pronouncements

Bangalore Branch of ICAI6th February, 2019

CA Krishna Upadhya S

Outline Overview of International Taxation Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) Article 7 - Business Profits Article 5 - Permanent Establishment Comparison of Article 7 in DTAAs signed by India Key issues – Article 7 Recent Judicial Pronouncements Q and A

Overview of International Taxation

Section 6Residence in India

Section 7 Income

deemed to be received

Section 9Income Deemed

to accrue or arise in India

Section 90 Agreement with foreign countries or

specified territories

Section 5 Scope of Total

Income

The Income Tax Act, 1961

Section 5 – Scope of Total Income

ParticularsIndividuals & HUF Any other person

OR NOR NR R NR

Income received or deemedto be received in India

Y Y Y Y Y

Income arises or deemed toarise in India

Y Y Y Y Y

Income accrues or deemedto accrue in India

Y Y Y Y Y

Income accrues or arisesoutside India

Y N N Y N

Income accrues or arisesoutside India if it is derivedfrom a business controlledin or profession set up inIndia

Y Y N Y N

Section 9: Income deemed to accrue or arise in India

Income deemed to

accrue/arise in India

Business Connection/

Property/source of income

Salaries

Salaries by Govt.

DividendInterest

Royalty

Fees for technical services

Business ConnectionIncome accruing or arising,through or from any Business Connection in India orthrough or from any property in India orthrough or from any asset or source of income in India orthrough the transfer of a capital asset situate in India.The term ‘Business Connection’ is not defined in the Act and is to beunderstood in general parlance and through judicial precedents.

Explanation 1 to 9(1)(i)a) Rule of attribution – profit attributable to operations in Indiab) Exclusion of preparatory activity of purchase for export onlyc) News agency exclusiond) Shooting of Cinematography film exclusion in certain

circumstancese) Exclusion for only display of diamonds in special case notified

by Central Government

Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(i) - Business Connection shall includeAny business activity carried out through a person, acting on behalf of thenon-resident, who(a) has and habitually exercises in India, an authority to conclude contracts

on behalf of the non-resident or habitually concludes contracts orhabitually plays the principal role leading to conclusion of contracts bythat non-resident and the contracts are,(i) in the name of the non-resident; or(ii) for the transfer of the ownership of, or for the granting of the rightto use, property owned by that non-resident or that non-resident has theright to use; or(iii) for the provision of services by the non-resident; or (w.e.f 01-04-2019)

(b) has no such authority but habitually maintains in India a stock of goodsor merchandise and regularly delivers them on behalf of the nonresident ; or

(c) habitually secures orders in India, mainly and wholly for the non residentprovided that such business connection shall not include any businessactivity carried out through a broker, general commission agent havingan independent status acting in the ordinary course of his business.

Business Connection

Explanation 2A to section 9(1)(i) – significant economic presencewill form business connection in India (w.e.f. 01-04-2019)Significant Economic Presence which means,a) transaction in respect of any goods, services or property carried

out by a non-resident in India including provision of download ofdata or software in India, if the aggregate of payments arisingfrom such transaction or transactions during the previous yearexceeds such amount as may be prescribed; or

b) systematic and continuous soliciting of business activities orengaging in interaction with such number of users as may beprescribed, in India through digital means.

The above is irrespective of whether:i. Agreement is entered into in Indiaii. Non-resident has a residence or place of business in Indiaiii. Non resident renders services in India

Rule of attribution

Business Connection through Significant Economic Presence

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement

Section 90- Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)

For granting relief in respect of:1. the income on which income tax has been paid under the

IT Act, 1961 and income-tax in that country/specifiedterritory or income which is chargeable to tax under boththe geographies, to promote mutual economic relations,trade and investment, or

2. for the avoidance of double taxation of income, or3. for exchange of information for the prevention of evasion

or avoidance of income-tax or investigation of cases ofsuch evasion or avoidance, or

4. for recovery of income-tax.

Taxability

Is income received,deemed to bereceived, accruedor deemed to beaccrued in India ?

Is therea TaxTreaty ?

Isprovisionsof TaxTreatymoreBeneficial?

Taxableas perTaxTreatysubjectto GAAR

Income not Taxablein India

Taxable as per Income Tax Act

Yes Yes Yes

No No No

In relation to the assessee to whom the agreement applies, theprovisions of the Act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial tothat assessee

Any term if not defined in the Act, Agreement shall have the meaningassigned to it in the notification issued by the Central Government.

To claim the relief, every non resident has to obtain the certificate ofresidence from the country of residence.

DTAA – An Overview In layman language Treaty is a formally concluded agreement

between two or more independent nationsThe treaty can be a tax treaty or a non-tax treaty. DTAA as the

name suggests is a tax treaty India has close to 86 effective DTAA as on dateGlobally, there are 2 broad framework in which DTAAs are entered

into – OECD Model Convention and the UN ModelTypically, the DTAA is divided into various articles, which broadly

contains the following: Scope Definition Articles allocating the right of taxation of various incomes Elimination of double taxation Anti avoidance provisions Miscellaneous provisions

In the interpretation of DTAA – OECD commentary and principles laid down in Vienna Convention play a significant role

Article 7 - Business Profits

Article 7 – OECD ModelThe OECD Model of DTAA contains only 4 paras:

Para 1 – PE and profit attribution

Para 2 – Attribution using the TP methods under independent entity principle

Para 3 – Elimination of double taxation in case of attribution

Para 4 – Other article and Article 7 interplay

Para 20, 21 & 22 of the commentary collectively explains the mode ofattribution would involve the following steps:

Functional and factual analysis – AE transactions and Non AE transactions

AE transactions are priced on TP analysis as per OECD TPG

Interestingly, the OECD only talk about profit attribution and leavesthe right to allow expenditure and frame conditions of deductibility ofexpenses and computing taxable income to each state and does nothave that in its model convention

Further, commentary on para 4 state that in case of any incomes arespecifically covered under other articles, they will have priority overArticle 7.

Article 7 – Business Profits• The term “business profits” has not been defined under most tax treaties entered

into by India under the UN or OECD model Tax Conventions. In such a situation, theprovisions of the domestic tax laws of the ‘country of source’ would govern themeaning of the term “business profits” and the exact method of their computation.Thus, in the Indian context, the meaning of the term “Business Profits” would haveto be ascertained in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 (“ITAct”).

• The term “business” is defined under section 2(13) of IT Act as including ‘anytrade, commerce or manufacturing’. The term “Profits” however has not beendefined in the IT Act, although they do exist elaborate provisions for the“computation of business profits’ under the IT Act. Reliance would therefore haveto be placed on judicial precedents to determine the meaning of the term. Indiancourts have generally taken the view that profits are essentially the surplus bywhich receipt of any business exceed the necessary expenditure for the purpose ofearning those receipts.

• It should be noted that the India – US Tax Treaty is an exception to the norm, andcontains its own definitions of the term “Business profits”. The treaty defines‘business profits’ to mean “income from any trade or business including incomefrom furnishing of services other than included services as defined in Article 12(Royalties and fees for other services) and including income from the rentals oftangible personal property other than the property described in paragraph (3)(a) ofArticle 12”. The treaty also states that profit shall includes only the profits derivedfrom the assets and activities of the PE.

Article 5 - Permanent Establishment

Permanent Establishment Permanent Establishment is an important concept under the Tax

Treaties. Usually, when a non-resident carries on business in anothercountry (a foreign country), its business profit is taxable in that foreigncountry only, if the following two conditions are fulfilled:

a) Those two countries have entered into a Tax treaty and

b) The non-resident carries business in the foreign country through a PEsituated in that foreign country

If it carries on business in the foreign country but not through a PE, thenusually, according to a tax treaty, its profit will not be taxable in thatforeign country.

There is no standard definition of the term “PE” in all the Tax Treaties.The definition of the term “PE” varies from treaty to treaty.

Types of PE:

1.Fixed Place PE

2.Service PE

3.Agency PE

4.Construction PE

Comparison of Article 7

Charging ProvisionIndia – USA : Article 7(1) India – Hongkong : Article 7(1)

The profits of an enterprise of a Contracting Stateshall be taxable only in that State unless theenterprise carries on business in the otherContracting State through a PE situated therein. Ifthe enterprise carries on business as aforesaid, theprofits of the enterprise may be taxed in the otherState but only so much of them as is attributable toa) that PE ;b) sales in the other State of goods or

merchandise of the same or similar kind asthose sold through that PE ; or

c) other business activities carried on in the otherState of the same or similar kind as those effectedthrough that PE.

(1) The profits of an enterprise of a ContractingParty shall be taxable only in that Party unless theenterprise carries on business in the otherContracting Party through a permanentestablishment situated therein. If the enterprisecarries on business as aforesaid, the profits of theenterprise may be taxed in the other Party but onlyso much of them as is attributable to thatpermanent establishment.

Profit AttributionIndia – USA : Article 7(2) India – Hongkong : Article 7(2) & 7(4)

Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3, where anenterprise of a Contracting State carries on businessin the other Contracting State through a PE situatedtherein, there shall in each Contracting State beattributed to that PE the profits which it might beexpected to make if it were a distinct andindependent enterprise engaged in the same orsimilar activities under the same or similar conditionsand dealing wholly at arm's length with theenterprise of which it is a PE and other enterprisescontrolling, controlled by or subject to the samecommon control as that enterprise.

In any case where the correct amount of profitsattributable to a PE is incapable of determination orthe determination thereof presents exceptionaldifficulties, the profits attributable to the PE may beestimated on a reasonable basis.

The estimate adopted shall, however, be such thatthe result shall be in accordance with the principlescontained in this Article.

7(2) - Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3,where an enterprise of a Contracting Party carries onbusiness in the other Contracting Party through apermanent establishment situated therein, thereshall in each Contracting Party be attributed to thatpermanent establishment the profits which it mightbe expected to make if it were a distinct andseparate enterprise engaged in the same or similaractivities under the same or similar conditions anddealing wholly independently with the enterprise ofwhich it is a permanent establishment.

7(4) - Insofar as it has been customary in aContracting Party to determine the profits to beattributed to a permanent establishment on the basisof an apportionment of the total profits of theenterprise to its various parts, or on the basis of suchother method as may be prescribed by the laws ofthat Party, nothing in paragraph 2 shall preclude thatContracting Party from determining the profits to betaxed by such apportionment or other method; themethod adopted shall, however, be such that theresult shall be in accordance with the principlescontained in this Article.

Expenses allowed in determining profits of a PE

• Incurred for the purpose of business of the PE• Expenses including reasonable allocation of executive & general administrative, research

and development expenses, interest, and other expenses• incurred for the purposes of the enterprise as a whole (or the part thereof which includes

the PE)• Incurred in or outside the source country• In accordance with and subject to limitations of domestic law

(appearing in most of the Indian tax treaties)

• Amount paid by PE to the HO or to any of it’s other offices - by way of royalties, fees orother similar payments in return for the use of patents, know-how or other rights, or byway of commission or other charges for specific services performed or for management,or, except in the case of a banking enterprises, by way of interest on moneys lent to thePE.

• Similarly, amount received by PE from HO or any of it’s other offices for aforesaidpurposes shall be ignored

No deduction (except reimbursem ent of actual expenses)

Deduction of ExpensesIndia – USA : Article 7(3)

India – Hongkong : Article 7(3)

Expenses allowed in determining profits of a PE

• Incurred for the purpose of business of the PE• executive and general administrative expenses so incurred• whether in the Party in which the permanent establishment is situated or elsewhere• in accordance with the provisions of the tax laws of that Party.

Profit attribution contd..

India – USA India – Hongkong

Article 7(4)

No profits shall be attributed to a permanentestablishment by reason of the merepurchase by that permanent establishment ofgoods or merchandise for the enterprise.

Article 7(5)

For the purposes of this Convention, theprofits to be attributed to the permanentestablishment as provided in paragraph 1(a)of this Article shall include only the profitsderived from the assets and activities of thepermanent establishment and shall bedetermined by the same method year byyear unless there is good and sufficientreason to the contrary.

Article 7(5)

No profits shall be attributed to a permanentestablishment by reason of the merepurchase by that permanent establishment ofgoods or merchandise for the enterprise.

Article 7(6)

For the purposes of the precedingparagraphs, the profits to be attributed tothe permanent establishment shall bedetermined by the same method year byyear unless there is good and sufficientreason to the contrary.

Other ClausesIndia – USA India – Hongkong

Article 7(6)

Where profits include items of income whichare dealt with separately in other Articles ofthe Convention, then the provisions of thoseArticles shall not be affected by theprovisions of this Article.

Article 7(7)

For the purposes of the Convention, the term"business profits" means income derived fromany trade or business including income fromthe furnishing of services other than includedservices as defined in Article 12 (Royaltiesand Fees for Included Services) and includingincome from the rental of tangible personalproperty other than property described inparagraph 3(b) of Article 12 (Royalties andFees for Included Services).

Article 7(7)

Where profits include items of income whichare dealt with separately in other Articles ofthis Agreement, then the provisions of thoseArticles shall not be affected by theprovisions of this Article.

Key Issues -

Article 7 Permanent Establishment Force of Attraction Attribution of profits Characterisation of Income Claim of Expenditure

Force of Attraction Rule It is manifest that for profits to be treated as being

attributable to a PE, such profits must ariseeconomically from the business carried out by the PEand have a ‘direct and proximate’ connection withthe PE.

UN Model incorporates Force of Attraction Rule,whereby profits which are not strictly attributable tothe PE are also included. Tax treaties entered into byIndia with countries such as Russia, Switzerland, UK,Singapore employ the expression ‘directly orindirectly attributable to the PE’ which alsorecognise FOA.

Intent behind FOA clause is to prevent treaty abusein cases where the taxpayer may undertake minimalprofitable activities through the PE while stillutilising the PE as the main canalling agency withrespect to its operation in the source state.

Right to prove otherwise: In some Indian DTAAs,while basically making provisions in Article 7(1) onthe lines of UN Model, a further provision is alsomade giving right to the enterprise to prove thatprofit from sale of similar goods/carrying on of otherbusiness activities etc, of the enterprise are notattributable to the PE or to prove that such activitycould not have been undertaken by the PE e.g. SriLanka, Cyprus etc.

Head office

Customers

PE

Sale / Activities

Direct Sale / Activities

Source Country

Residence Country

Application of FOA - PossibilitiesNo FOAThe business profits should be taxedin the Source country by treating PEsituated therein as a separate sourceand other business profits of theenterprise, independently earned inthat country, should not be taxed.

Some examples of Indian DTAAs withNo FOA: Hong King, Finland, Israel

Head office

Customers

PE

Business profits

Business Profits

Source Country

Residence Country

Full FOAAll the profits that the enterprisederived from Source country aretaxable in that country itself as a partof its profits of the PE, irrespective ofthe fact as to whether such profitscome from the PE or from otherindependent business activity of theenterprise in that country.

Some examples of Indian DTAAs withFull FOA: USA, UK, China

Head office

Customers

PE

Business profits

Business Profits

Source Country

Residence Country

Any

inco

me

Any

inco

me

Application of FOA - Possibilities

Limited FOAProfits attributable to direct sale ofsame or similar goods/merchandise,which are sold through the PE, or theprofits attributable to the same orsimilar other business activitiescarried on in Source country by theenterprise as those effected throughPE, should also be taxed along withthe profits of the PE.

Some examples of Indian DTAAs withLimited FOA: Indonesia(in theprotocol), New Zealand, Turkey

Head office

Customers

PE

Source Country

Residence Country

Same or similar

products –Business

Profit

Other activity – Not

Business Profits

Head office

Customers

PE

Business profits

Source Country

Residence Country

Application of FOA - Possibilities

Attribution of Profits Most debated matter under Article 7 is the principles of attribution

There is no guidance in the Income Tax Law relating to attribution except Rule 10 of Income Tax Rules: At such percentage of turnover as considered to be reasonable by AO On India income: Global income proportion of the total profits In such manner as AO deems suitable

The most suitable mode of attribution of profit is by following the principles of Transfer Pricing ascontained in Chapter X of the Act. However, tax authorities don’t follow this and follow the arbitraryattribution in Rule 10

OECD commentary also recognizes that attribution of profits needs to be carried out by considering theOECD TPG

“As regards attribution of further profits to the PE of MSCo where the transaction between the twoare held to be at arm’s length, we hold that the ruling is correct in principle provided that anassociated enterprise (that also constitutes a PE} is remunerated on arm’s length basis taking intoaccount all the risk-taking functions of the multinational enterprise. In such a case nothing furtherwould be left to attribute to the PE. The situation would be different if the transfer pricing analysisdoes not adequately reflect the functions performed and the risks assumed by the enterprise. In sucha case, there would be need to attribute profits to the PE for those functions/risks that have notbeen considered.” - DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co [2007] 292 ITR 416 (SC)

In a recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Delhi ITAT in the case of ESS Advertising (Mauritius) SNC etCompagnie vs DIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 312, the above principle was followed and it was held noadditional profit attribution is required once the profit of Indian PE has satisfied the arms lengthprinciple

Hon’ble Delhi ITAT in the case of GE Nuovo Pignone SPA vs DCIT[2019] 101 taxmann.com 402 based onthe facts of the case held that since all the functions were not considered while doing the TP analysis,additional profit attributed by the TPO was in order as it falls under the exception as laid down byHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley (supra)

Characterisation of IncomeAAR in the case of Morgan Stanley & Co. International Ltd., [2005] 142

TAXMAN 630 (AAR-NEW DELHI), regarding the taxability of income earned fromtrading in derivative instruments in India had held that as the volume of thetransactions of purchases and sales in derivatives was huge, the income fromtrading in derivatives was not capital gains but business income. It alsoobserved that as the applicant did not have any PE in India, the incomeearned would not be taxable in India.

Business Income vs Royalty – Software payments [CIT vs Samsung ElectronicsCo. Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 494 (Kar)]

Business Income vs Fee for Technical Services

Business Income vs Other Sources Dy. CIT v. TVS Electronics Ltd. [2012] 57 SOT 287/22 taxmann.com 215 (Chennai) – India-

Mauritius treaty (against the assessee) Bangkok Glass Industry Co. Ltd. Vs ACIT [2013] 257 CTR 326 (Madras) – India – Thailand

Treaty (in favour of the assessee) ABB FZ-LLC v. ITO (International Transaction) [2016] 75 taxmann.com 83/[2017] 162 ITD 89

(Bang.) Zynga Game Networks India (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT [2018] 97 taxmann.com 44 (Bangalore - Trib.)

– India – Philippines treaty

Claim of expenditureOECD Model convention allows the question on deductibility of expenditure to

the domestic law itself

Some of India treaties have detailed explanation on the deductibility ofexpenses in the treaty itself (India-USA, India – France, India - Indonesiatreaty etc..)

India – UK treaty in para 6 has provisions similar to MFN when a restriction onexpenses are imposed (similar para exists in India – France treaty also)

Some of the treaties have left it to be determined by the domestic tax law(India – Hong Kong, India – Israel, India – Germany etc.)

In any case, since the computation of income is being done as per theprovisions of Income Tax Act, all the provisions of the Act relating towithholding of tax, restriction on cash payment, certain expenses allowableonly on payment basis etc., will apply. - Held similarly by Hon’ble SupremeCourt in Morgan Stanley ruling (supra)

Judicial Pronouncements

GE Energy Parts Inc. v. CIT, International Taxation, Delhi [2019] 101taxmann.com 142 (Delhi)GE Energy Parts Inc (GEP) is incorporated in and is a tax resident of the USA. It is engaged in

the business of manufacture and offshore sale of highly sophisticated equipments such as gasturbine parts and sub-assemblies.

GE sells its products offshore on a principal to principal basis to customers all over the world,including to customers located in India, whereby the title to the goods sold to Indian customerspasses from it outside India.

GEIOC, another US incorporated company, set up a liaison office (LO) in 1991 in New Delhi withpermission of the RBI only to act as a communication channel and not to carry on any businessactivity.

GEIIPL is an India incorporated company and is party to the Global Service Agreement (GSA)with GEIOC, for providing limited market support services to GE and its affiliates.

Since GE carries out, i.e. manufacture and supply of highly specialized and technicallycustomized equipment and the "core activity" of developing the customer (identifying a client),approaching that customer, communicating the available options, discussing technical andfinancial terms of the agreement, even price negotiations, needed a collaborative process inwhich the potential client along with GE's India employees and its experts, had to intenselynegotiate the intricacies of the technical and commercial parameters of the articles and thisalso involved discussing the contractual terms and the associated consideration payable, thewarranty and other commercial terms, discharge of vital responsibilities relating to finalizationof commercial terms, or at least a prominent involvement in the contract finalization process,clearly revealed that the GE carried on business in India through its fixed place of business andhad fixed place permanent establishment in India and they were also held to be DAPE forforeign entity

10% of sales income in India is attributed to GE overseas entities in India and on that 35% wasattributed as profits was held to be reasonable by the Delhi High Court

ADIT vs E-funds IT Solutions Inc (Supreme Court)E-Funds Corp and eFunds IT Solutions are two American entities. E-Funds

International India Pvt Ltd is an India entity.Both US entities have entered into International transactions with e-Funds

India and income of e-Funds India have been tested under the TP provisionsIt was held that the 2 entities have PE in India by was of Fixed place. CIT(A)

upheld the order of the AO and also held that there is not fund Fixed place PEbut agency and service PE also as per the India – USA DTAAITAT confirmed the order of CIT(A) regarding fixed place and service PE but

did not rule anything on the agency PE but it came out with a Nil incomedespite existence of PEAssessee appelaed before High court, which was successful and cross appeal

by Revenue was dismissed. Then the revenue filed the appeal before theSupreme CourtHon’ble Supreme Court reiterating its ruling in the Formula One case, held

that there is no findings in the order of the authorities below that there is aFixed place at the disposal of the foreign enterprise and therefore, there is noFixed place PE that those US enterprises constitutes in IndiaFurther, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that merely because some part of

the activity of the foreign entities were outsourced to India, it does not giveraise to fixed place PE at allRegarding the service PE, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that only when

customers receives any service in India, Service PE is said to be created. Sincenone of the customers of the tax payer were in India, no service PE is alsocreated – Relied on Morgan Stanley ruling of the Apex courtFurther, since the services were already remunerated at arms length, even if

there were to be PE, there is no additional income to be attributed

Formula One World Championship Ltd. v CIT,(International Taxation)-3, Delhi, [2017] 80taxmann.com 347 (SC)The assessee, FOWC was a UK tax resident company.Consequent to agreements entered into between the Federation

International Automobile (FIA) Formula One Asset ManagementLimited (FOAM) and FOWC, FOAM licensed all commercial rights in theFIA Formula One World Championship (Championship) to FOWC for100-year term effective from 1-1- 2011.The assessee entered into a Race Promotion Contract (RPC) by which

it granted to Jaypee Sports the right to host, stage and promoteFormula One (F1) Grand Prix of India event for a consideration of USD40 million.An Artworks license Agreement contemplated in RPC was also entered

into between assessee and Jaypee the same day permitting the use ofcertain marks and intellectual property belonging to assessee for aconsideration of USD 1.

The assessee and Jaypee both approached the AAR and sought advance rulingon the following questions:

(i) Whether the payment of consideration receivable by assessee outside India in termsof RPC from Jaypee was or was not royalty as defined in article 13 of Indo-UK DTAA?(ii) Whether assessee was justified in its position that it did not have a PE in India interms of article 5 of the DTAA?(iii) Whether any part of the consideration received or receivable from Jaypee byassessee outside India was subject to tax at source under section 195 of the IndianIncome Tax Act?

The AAR, after hearing the parties and considering the materials on record,concluded that firstly the amounts paid were 'royalty'. Secondly, assessee hadno fixed place of business, was not doing any business activity in India and hadnot authorized any organization or entity to conclude contracts on theirbehalf and, therefore, had no PE in India.On appeal, the High Court reversed the findings of AAR on both the issues.

Whereas it has held that the amount paid/payable under RPC by Jaypee toassessee would not be treated as royalty. As per High Court assessee had PE inIndia and, therefore, taxable in India. The High Court has also held thatJaypee is bound to make appropriate deductions from the amount payable toassessee under section 195.Supreme Court upholds High Court's conclusion that where assessee a UK

based company granted to Jaypee Sports, right to host and promote FormulaF-1 Race at motor racing circuit owned by Jaypee and assessee had full accessto circuit and it could dictate as to who was authorized to access circuit andorganising any other event on circuit was not permitted, said circuitconstituted PE of assessee in India

Questions & Discussions

CA Krishna Upadhya S

"Back of precedents are the basic juridical conceptions which are the postulates of judicial reasoning, and farther back are the habits of life, the

institutions of society, in which those conceptions had their origin, and which, by a process of interaction, they have modified in turn"

Benjamin N. Cardozo