sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
News Headlines »
 How to submit Form 15H, Form 15G to avoid TDS on interest income
 What is tax deducted at source (TDS)?
 Income Tax Return filing 2018: Here are some important tips for you
 Change in Examination Venue in Thane, Zone – II, May 2018 Examinations
 Here’s all you need to know New Income Tax return for salaried class available on IT portal
 What to do if you missed the (second) tax deadline
 Income-tax (5th Amendment) Rules, 2018 - Notification under section 9A (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of Fund Manager Regime
 Income Tax department warns salaried class again filing wrong ITRs
 ITR-1 form for AY 18-19 now available for e-filing
 New Income Tax Return Form for Salaried Class available in Portal
 Income Tax Return: ITR-1 ready for e-filing, says I-T department

SC affirms ruling on Morgan PE
September, 03rd 2007
It is quite common for multinational companies to depute their employees to work with their subsidiaries in India. Whether such employees create a permanent establishment (PE) in India or not, has been a subject matter of controversy.
This issue arose in case of Morgan Stanley & Co which is a non-resident in India and tax resident of the US. It is a leading an investment bank having a number of group companies in various parts of the world. One of the group companies is Morgan Stanley Advantage Services Private Limited (MSAS) which is incorporated in India.
In the above case of Morgan Stanley & Co (284 ITR 260), employees were deputed to work in India with its subsidiary company. The employees were deputed in two different categories. One category of employees was primarily for quality control in the subsidiary, which was called the stewardship activities. The other category of employees were deputed to work in temporary employment of the subsidiary on request from the subsidiary. In both categories, the tax department considered that the deputation of employees will constitute Morgans PE in India. When the matter was taken to the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR), it was held that the subsidiary would be regarded as the PE of the US company in India if the employees were deputed for a period beyond 90 days.
Regarding the issue of taxability of income in India, the Authority held that as long as Indian subsidiary is remunerated for its services at arms length price, there should be no additional profits attributable to the Morgans or its subsidiary. Therefore, there will be no tax on Morgans income in India beyond the income of the PE.The matter finally reached the Apex Court. The Honourable Supreme Court in its judgement dated July 9, 2007 has held as under:
it can not be said that the Morgan has been rendering the services to subsidiary. In our view Morgan is merely protecting its own interests in the competitive world by ensuring the quality and confidentiality of subsidiarys services. We do not agree with the ruling of the AAR that the stewardship activity would fall under Article 5(2)(l). Thus there will be no PE on this account.
However, affirming the view of the AAR that deputed employees in temporary employment of the Indian enterprise will constitute PE in India, the SC observed that Morgan is rendering services through its employees to subsidiary. Therefore, the Department is right in its contention that under the above situation there exists a service PE in India.
As far as allocation of taxable profits to Morgans through its Indian PE is concerned, the Honourable court affirmed the ruling of AAR by holding that : under the impugned ruling delivered by the AAR, remuneration to MSAS (subsidiary) was justified by a transfer pricing analysis and therefore, no further income could be attributed to the PE (MSAS). In other words, the said ruling equates an arms length analysis (ALA) with attribution of profits. It holds that once a transfer pricing analysis is undertaken; there is no further need to attribute profits to PE.
The Morgan Stanleys case also sets at rest the controversy created by Mumbai Tribunal in case of Deputy CIT vs Set Sattelite (Pte) Ltd, 106 ITD 175, wherein it was held that the tax liability of a foreign enterprise is not extinguished by making an arms length payment to an agency PE in India. This decision stands overruled by Morgans case.

H P Aggarwal

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - We Bring IT. Offshore software outsourcing company. We use Global Delivery Model (GDM) and believe in Follow The Sun principle

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions