SC: Forfeiture of Earnest Money Impermissible When Both Buyer and Seller are at Fault  ||  Supreme Court: Gravity of Offence Cannot Defeat Speedy Trial; Pre-Trial Detention is Punishment  ||  SC: Terrorist Act under UAPA Includes Conspiracies to Disrupt Essential Supplies, Not Just Violence  ||  Supreme Court Directs Measures to Prevent False and Frivolous Complaints Against Judicial Officers  ||  SC: Mere Participation in Arbitration Doesn’t Bar Challenging Arbitrator; Waiver Must be in Writing  ||  SC: Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the Plaintiff, as Dominus Litis, Cannot be Forced to Add a Defendant  ||  SC: Law Does Not Change With a New Bench; Decisions of a Coordinate Bench are Binding  ||  Delhi HC Absence of Formal Arrest under Section 311A Crpc Does Not Bar Giving Handwriting Samples  ||  Del HC: Security Guards Performing Duties Cannot Be Prosecuted For Wrongful Restraint or Molestation  ||  Bombay HC: Housing Society Earning From Telecom Towers Isn’t An ‘Industry’; Staff Get No Gratuity    

Del. HC: Company’s Subsidiary Doesn’t Ipso Facto Constitute its Permanent Establishment - (27 Feb 2025)

DIRECT TAXATION

Del. HC has held that there is no general presumption in law that a subsidiary can never be acknowledged to be a Permanent Establishment (PE). This is since Article 5(8) of India-Finland Double Taxation Treaty itself merely states that the said factor alone shall not be determinative of PE question.

Tags : DELHI HIGH COURT   PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT   DOUBLE TAXATION TREATY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved