Remote Access & Virtual Services Don't Create Permanent Establishment: ITAT Rejects "Virtual Service PE" Theory Under India-Canada DTAA, Allows IMAX Theatre Services Appeal [Read Order]

In a significant ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, held that remote access to client systems and the provision of virtual services do not create a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under the India-Canada Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Tribunal explicitly rejected the "Virtual Service PE" theory, emphasising that physical presence is a prerequisite for constituting a Service PE.

IMAX Theatre Services Ltd., the appellant and a tax resident of Canada, provided maintenance services for theatre systems globally. The Assessing Officer (AO) had alleged that the assessee had a Fixed Place PE in India due to remote access to client systems and a Service PE through an individual, Mr. Sunil Kumar, who visited India for maintenance work. The AO attributed profits to this alleged PE, a decision partly upheld by the DisputeResolution Panel (DRP), which suggested a "Supervisory PE."

The Tribunal, consisting of Judicial Member Vikas Awasthy and Accountant Member Sanjay Awasthi, overturned these findings. Regarding the Fixed Place PE, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the "disposal test" was not satisfied, noting that remote access granted by customers for troubleshooting and monitoring did not amount to the assessee having a place at its disposal.

On the issue of Service PE, the Tribunal noted the admitted fact that the service personnel were present in India for only 67 days, falling short of the 90-day threshold prescribed under Article 5(2)(l) of the DTAA. The Revenue had argued that services rendered virtually should be counted towards this threshold, effectively creating a "Virtual Service PE."

Rejecting this contention, the Tribunal relied heavily on the Delhi High Court’s decision in CIT vs. Clifford Chance Pte. Ltd. and the subsequent ITAT ruling in Ernst & Young (EMEIA) Services Limited vs. ACIT. The Tribunal observed that the DTAA requires the furnishing of services "within a Contracting State through employees or other personnel," which mandates a physical footprint. It held that courts cannot artificially read concepts like "Virtual Service PE" into treaty provisions where they are expressly absent.

Furthermore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's reliance on the individual's LinkedIn profile to prove an employer-employee relationship, accepting the assessee's evidence that he was an employee of a third-party Australian vendor.

Resultantly, the Tribunal quashed the PE allegations and allowed the assessee's appeal.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates