Csr 100 forex brokers - BestforextrainingNet

Csr 100 forex brokers

GE Overseas under the Act as well as the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. He did not accept the contention of the assessee that the sale consideration was not taxable in India as the title in respect of the equipments was transferred outside Csr 100 forex brokers and the payments were also received outside India. He held that a lot of activities relating to marketing and sales took place in India. GE India’ comprising of expatriates of GEII and employees of GEIIPL constituting `dependent agent PE’.

AR argued that none of the activities carried out by the assessee in India lead to the creation of PE. All the three conditions for constituting a fixed place PE in terms of paras 1, 2 and 3 of the Article 5 are fully satisfied as AIFCAS building is a fixed place from which business of GE Overseas is partly carried on in India and the activities carried out from such fixed place are not of preparatory or auxiliary character. Reliance of the AR on DIT VS. In that case, the tribunal held that the activities of e-funds India were not preparatory or auxiliary in character in terms of paragraph 3 of Article 5 and hence PE was created in India. Reliance of the AR on CIT VS. 2011 145 place PE was constituted, is misplaced. We do not find any relevance of this case to the issue under consideration.

It is an admitted position that the expats were rendering services to multiple GE entities in India. DR has successfully contended, while arguing for the validity of initiation of re-assessment proceedings, that the expats were looking after one of the three major lines of business, such as Infrastructure etc. Thus, there remains no doubt that GE India comprising of expats and other employees of GEIIPL etc. Now, we take up the contention of the ld. DR that since the transactions were not at ALP, or for that matter, the international transactions were not even disclosed, the assessee cannot claim not to have an agency PE.

GE Overseas were not disclosed and, as such, question of deeming such transactions at ALP does not arise. In spite of turning down the contention of the ld. DR in this regard, we find that the GE India still qualifies as a person in para 4 of Article 5, whose activities constitute agency PE in India. 5 applies -’ fulfills the conditions as set out in this para, he will constitute PE of the enterprise. Coming back to the facts of the present case, we find that the expats of GEII and employees of GEIIPL were appointed to act as agent of multiple GE overseas enterprises. It is nobody’s case that they were otherwise acting as agents of independent status working for other third parties in India.