Facts of the Case

Rolls Royce PLC, a company incorporated in England and Wales and a tax resident of the United Kingdom, supplied aircraft and equipment to Indian customers including the Indian Navy, Indian Air Force and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

Rolls Royce India Limited (RRIL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rolls Royce PLC, maintained offices in India and rendered liaison and support services. RRIL was compensated on a cost-plus basis for the services rendered.

During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that RRIL was carrying out substantial activities in India on behalf of Rolls Royce PLC and held that a business connection existed between the assessee and India. The Assessing Officer further held that RRIL constituted a Permanent Establishment (PE) of Rolls Royce PLC in India under Article 5 of the India–UK DTAA.

The Assessing Officer attributed profits arising from sales made to Indian customers to the Indian operations and taxed such income in India. The matter travelled through appellate proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), and ultimately before the Delhi High Court.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether RRIL constituted a Permanent Establishment (PE) of Rolls Royce PLC in India under Article 5 of the India–UK DTAA.
  2. Whether Rolls Royce PLC had a business connection in India under Section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  3. Whether profits arising from sales made to Indian customers were attributable to the Indian PE.
  4. What should be the extent of profit attribution to the activities carried out in India 

Petitioner’s Arguments (Rolls Royce PLC)

  • RRIL was an independent entity rendering liaison and support services.
  • RRIL did not possess authority to conclude contracts on behalf of Rolls Royce PLC.
  • RRIL's activities were preparatory and auxiliary in nature and therefore did not create a Permanent Establishment under Article 5 of the DTAA.
  • The objections and documents filed by the assessee allegedly demonstrated that RRIL did not constitute a PE in India.
  • Even if income was attributable to India, only net profits should be considered and certain research and development expenses should be deducted before profit attribution.
  • The Tribunal had not properly appreciated the assessee’s objections and supporting documents.

Respondent’s Arguments (Revenue Department)

  • RRIL was not merely a liaison office but was deeply involved in the business operations of Rolls Royce PLC in India.
  • RRIL actively supported marketing, solicitation of orders, customer interaction and execution of business activities in India.
  • RRIL functioned almost like a sales office of Rolls Royce PLC and the Rolls Royce Group.
  • The Indian entity was economically and functionally dependent upon the assessee.
  • The extensive activities performed by RRIL created a business connection under Section 9(1)(i) and a Permanent Establishment under Article 5 of the DTAA.
  • Profits attributable to activities carried out in India were taxable in India. 

Court Findings

The Delhi High Court upheld the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and held that RRIL constituted a Permanent Establishment of Rolls Royce PLC in India.

The Court observed that:

  • RRIL was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rolls Royce PLC and was substantially dependent upon it.
  • The activities undertaken by RRIL were not merely preparatory or auxiliary.
  • RRIL performed significant functions connected with marketing, solicitation of business and support of commercial operations in India.
  • The Indian office effectively functioned as an extension of the assessee’s business operations.
  • A clear business connection existed in India within the meaning of Section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act.
  • The requirements of Article 5 of the India–UK DTAA for constituting a Permanent Establishment were satisfied.

On profit attribution, the Court accepted the Tribunal’s approach that only a portion of global profits should be attributed to activities carried out in India and upheld the Tribunal’s determination restricting attribution to 35% of the relevant global profits attributable to Indian operations.

Court Order

  • The appeals filed by Rolls Royce PLC were dismissed.
  • The Court upheld the finding that RRIL constituted a Permanent Establishment of Rolls Royce PLC in India.
  • The Court upheld the existence of business connection in India.
  • The Court approved the Tribunal’s approach regarding attribution of profits to the Indian PE.
  • The Revenue’s appeals seeking enhancement of attribution were also dismissed.
  • The order of the ITAT was affirmed. 

Important Clarification

The judgment clarifies that the existence of a wholly-owned Indian subsidiary can result in a Permanent Establishment where the subsidiary performs substantial business functions that are integral to the foreign enterprise’s operations in India. Merely characterizing activities as liaison or support services is insufficient if the actual conduct demonstrates active participation in core business operations.

The decision further emphasizes that determination of a Permanent Establishment depends on the real nature of activities undertaken in India rather than the contractual description of those activities. It also provides important guidance on attribution of profits to a Permanent Establishment under Article 7 of the India–UK DTAA.

Sections Involved

  • Section 9(1)(i), Income-tax Act, 1961 – Business Connection
  • Section 147, Income-tax Act, 1961 (issue raised but not pressed)
  • Article 5, India–United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) – Permanent Establishment
  • Article 7, India–United Kingdom DTAA – Attribution of Profits
  • Rule 10, Income-tax Rules, 1962 

Link to download the order –https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2011:DHC:14513-DB/AKS30082011ITA6482008_144158.pdf

 

Disclaimer


This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools