My UAE establishment wants an Indian liaison office to run seminars and pass enquiries back to Dubai. Will that be a business connection, and can I use the India-UAE treaty?
It depends, and the answers split. The Authority ruled that the proposed liaison office would generate no income for the applicant and would not amount to a business connection in India under section 9(1)(i): it would only be a channel of communication, a cost centre reimbursed periodically, holding seminars, relaying enquiries to Dubai and passing product information to Indian customers, with no power to negotiate or conclude contracts or to collect payments. But it added a warning that enlarging the office's scope to negotiating imports or purchases by Indian customers would be a business connection. On the treaty the applicant lost: as a UAE individual establishment it could not claim the agreement.
Pronounced by the Authority for Advance Rulings (Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman) and A. S. Narang, Member) on 2005-09-28, reported as [2005] 278 ITR 643 (AAR); (2005) 198 CTR (AAR) 417. It bears on section 9(1)(i), section 5(2), section DTAA art 4, section DTAA art 5 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Residence & Treaty Benefit and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
Useful because of its posture: the Authority ruled prospectively on a described set of liaison activities, which is exactly how the question reaches a practitioner. It gives you the line - communication yes, negotiation no - and says in terms what would cross it. The treaty half is now spent. The Authority followed the reasoning that individuals in the UAE, where there was no personal income tax, could not be residents of a Contracting State under article 4(1); the 2007 Protocol substituted article 4 and makes an individual a resident of the UAE on a 183-day presence test, so the ground for that half of the ruling has gone. Read the business connection half, and leave the rest.
Binding only on the applicant who sought it, in respect of the transaction the ruling was sought on, and on the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner and the authorities subordinate to him in respect of that applicant and that transaction — and only until the law or the facts change (section 245S). It binds nobody else. The Tribunal and the courts nonetheless treat a considered ruling as persuasive, which is why practitioners cite them.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Gutal Trading Est. was an establishment in the United Arab Emirates, licence No. 206898, owned by a non-resident individual, Matar Mohd. Matar. It acted as agent for the Glaverbel group, manufacturers of reflective glass in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Italy, the Czech Republic and Singapore, and earned a lump sum commission on orders executed from its territory. It proposed to open a liaison office in India, for which the Reserve Bank's permission would be required. The office would hold seminars, conferences and shows on Glaverbel's technology, receive trade enquiries and pass them to the Dubai office or to the principals, transmit product information to Indian customers, traders, architects and builders, and collect feedback on preferences and complaints. It would not negotiate or conclude contracts and would not collect payments. The applicant asked whether the office's activities would generate any income, whether such income would be deemed to accrue in India, whether it would have a business connection under section 9, and whether the activities were excluded from the definition of permanent establishment in article 5 of the India-UAE agreement.
On the first two questions the Authority ruled that the liaison office would not generate income for the applicant; it would be a cost centre, reimbursed periodically. On the third it ruled that the activities of the liaison office would not amount to having a business connection in India. Applying the three elements it had used in earlier rulings - a real and intimate relation between the trading activity carried on outside India and the activity within, a contribution by that relation to the earning of income, and continuity rather than an isolated nexus - it held that an office acting only as a channel of communication between the Indian customer on one side and the applicant and its principals on the other could not establish the required intimate relation. It added a condition: if the scope of the office were enlarged so that it entered into negotiations for the import or purchase of goods by Indian customers, that would constitute a business connection. On the fourth question the applicant failed. Following its ruling in Abdul Razak A. Meman, the Authority held that the applicant was not entitled to claim the benefit of the agreement, in view of article 4(1).
The Authority took the business connection question on the facts as described and tested them against the elements settled in its own earlier rulings, including UAE Exchange Centre and Sutron Corporation. The critical element was the first: is there a real and intimate relation between what the non-resident does abroad and what happens in India? The applicant's income was commission on orders executed from its territory, and the office was to have nothing to do with securing or executing an order. It would publicise the principals' technology, take in enquiries and pass them on, hand out product information and gather feedback. None of that is a link in the chain by which the commission is earned; it is publicity and message-carrying. The Authority made the boundary explicit rather than leaving it to inference - negotiation for the import or purchase of goods by Indian customers would be a different matter, because at that point the office would be doing part of the work that produces the commission. On the treaty the Authority did not reach article 5 at all, because the applicant fell at the earlier hurdle of article 4(1). Following Abdul Razak A. Meman, it held that an individual establishment in the UAE, where individuals bore no tax, was not a resident of a Contracting State and so could not claim the benefit of the agreement.
the activities of the liaison office would not tantamount to having a business connection in India.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppIt depends, and the answers split. The Authority ruled that the proposed liaison office would generate no income for the applicant and would not amount to a business connection in India under section 9(1)(i): it would only be a channel of communication, a cost centre reimbursed periodically, holding seminars, relaying enquiries to Dubai and passing product information to Indian customers, with no power to negotiate or conclude contracts or to collect payments. But it added a warning that enlarging the office's scope to negotiating imports or purchases by Indian customers would be a business connection. On the treaty the applicant lost: as a UAE individual establishment it could not claim the agreement. This was decided by the Advance Ruling (Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman) and A. S. Narang, Member) and bears on section 9(1)(i), section 5(2), section DTAA art 4, section DTAA art 5 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [2005] 278 ITR 643 (AAR); (2005) 198 CTR (AAR) 417. Useful because of its posture: the Authority ruled prospectively on a described set of liaison activities, which is exactly how the question reaches a practitioner. It gives you the line - communication yes, negotiation no - and says in terms what would cross it. The treaty half is now spent. The Authority followed the reasoning that individuals in the UAE, where there was no personal income tax, could not be residents of a Contracting State under article 4(1); the 2007 Protocol substituted article 4 and makes an individual a resident of the UAE on a 183-day presence test, so the ground for that half of the ruling has gone. Read the business connection half, and leave the rest. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Describe the office's activities exhaustively in the application, and keep the actual conduct inside that description.
Gutal Trading Est. was an establishment in the United Arab Emirates, licence No. 206898, owned by a non-resident individual, Matar Mohd. Matar. It acted as agent for the Glaverbel group, manufacturers of reflective glass in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Italy, the Czech Republic and Singapore, and earned a lump sum commission on orders executed from its territory. It proposed to open a liaison office in India, for which the Reserve Bank's permission would be required. The office would hold seminars, conferences and shows on Glaverbel's technology, receive trade enquiries and pass them to the Dubai office or to the principals, transmit product information to Indian customers, traders, architects and builders, and collect feedback on preferences and complaints. It would not negotiate or conclude contracts and would not collect payments. The applicant asked whether the office's activities would generate any income, whether such income would be deemed to accrue in India, whether it would have a business connection under section 9, and whether the activities were excluded from the definition of permanent establishment in article 5 of the India-UAE agreement. The matter was decided on 2005-09-28 by the Advance Ruling (Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman) and A. S. Narang, Member). On those facts the Advance Ruling held as follows. On the first two questions the Authority ruled that the liaison office would not generate income for the applicant; it would be a cost centre, reimbursed periodically. On the third it ruled that the activities of the liaison office would not amount to having a business connection in India. Applying the three elements it had used in earlier rulings - a real and intimate relation between the trading activity carried on outside India and the activity within, a contribution by that relation to the earning of income, and continuity rather than an isolated nexus - it held that an office acting only as a channel of communication between the Indian customer on one side and the applicant and its principals on the other could not establish the required intimate relation. It added a condition: if the scope of the office were enlarged so that it entered into negotiations for the import or purchase of goods by Indian customers, that would constitute a business connection. On the fourth question the applicant failed. Following its ruling in Abdul Razak A. Meman, the Authority held that the applicant was not entitled to claim the benefit of the agreement, in view of article 4(1).
The Authority took the business connection question on the facts as described and tested them against the elements settled in its own earlier rulings, including UAE Exchange Centre and Sutron Corporation. The critical element was the first: is there a real and intimate relation between what the non-resident does abroad and what happens in India? The applicant's income was commission on orders executed from its territory, and the office was to have nothing to do with securing or executing an order. It would publicise the principals' technology, take in enquiries and pass them on, hand out product information and gather feedback. None of that is a link in the chain by which the commission is earned; it is publicity and message-carrying. The Authority made the boundary explicit rather than leaving it to inference - negotiation for the import or purchase of goods by Indian customers would be a different matter, because at that point the office would be doing part of the work that produces the commission. On the treaty the Authority did not reach article 5 at all, because the applicant fell at the earlier hurdle of article 4(1). Following Abdul Razak A. Meman, it held that an individual establishment in the UAE, where individuals bore no tax, was not a resident of a Contracting State and so could not claim the benefit of the agreement. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "the activities of the liaison office would not tantamount to having a business connection in India."
It was decided by the Advance Ruling on 2005-09-28 and is reported as [2005] 278 ITR 643 (AAR); (2005) 198 CTR (AAR) 417. Binding only on the applicant who sought it, in respect of the transaction the ruling was sought on, and on the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner and the authorities subordinate to him in respect of that applicant and that transaction — and only until the law or the facts change (section 245S). It binds nobody else. The Tribunal and the courts nonetheless treat a considered ruling as persuasive, which is why practitioners cite them. An advance ruling binds only the applicant who sought it, only for the transaction it was sought on, and only the Commissioner and the officers under him in relation to that applicant and that transaction — and only until the law or the facts change. That is section 245S, and it means the ruling is not a precedent and binds nothing in your case. You cite it because the Authority reasoned the point out, often first and most fully, and the Tribunal and the courts treat a considered ruling as persuasive. Check before you rely on one: most of these were pronounced before 2009, and a great deal of cross-border tax has been rewritten since by amendment, protocol and judgment. On section 9(1)(i), section 5(2), section DTAA art 4, section DTAA art 5, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It cuts both ways and is cited by both sides. On the first two questions the Authority ruled that the liaison office would not generate income for the applicant; it would be a cost centre, reimbursed periodically. On the third it ruled that the activities of the liaison office would not amount to having a business connection in India. Applying the three elements it had used in earlier rulings - a real and intimate relation between the trading activity carried on outside India and the activity within, a contribution by that relation to the earning of income, and continuity rather than an isolated nexus - it held that an office acting only as a channel of communication between the Indian customer on one side and the applicant and its principals on the other could not establish the required intimate relation. It added a condition: if the scope of the office were enlarged so that it entered into negotiations for the import or purchase of goods by Indian customers, that would constitute a business connection. On the fourth question the applicant failed. Following its ruling in Abdul Razak A. Meman, the Authority held that the applicant was not entitled to claim the benefit of the agreement, in view of article 4(1). It arises in Residence & Treaty Benefit and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section 9(1)(i), section 5(2), section DTAA art 4, section DTAA art 5 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman) and A. S. Narang, Member. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Draw the line where the Authority drew it: relaying enquiries and information is safe, negotiating a purchase for an Indian customer is not. Do not rely on the treaty holding - article 4 was substituted by the Protocol notified on 28 November 2007, and a UAE individual can now be a resident on a 183-day test. Run the office as a cost centre with documented head-office reimbursement, which is how the Authority characterised it.
Superseded by amendment. The treaty half is gone. Checked the notification history of the India-UAE agreement on the Income-tax Department's site: the Protocol notified by Notification No. S.O. 2001(E) dated 28 November 2007 substituted article 4, which now makes an individual a resident of the UAE where he is present there for at least 183 days in the aggregate in the calendar year concerned. The reasoning the Authority followed from Abdul Razak A. Meman, that a UAE individual could not be a resident of a Contracting State because individuals bore no tax there, has no application to the treaty as it now stands. On the domestic half, clause (b) of Explanation 1 to section 9(1)(i) is unchanged, but Explanation 2A, substituted by the Finance Act 2020 with effect from 1 April 2022, adds a significant economic presence limb the Authority never considered. I found no court decision dealing with this ruling. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
I did not read Abdul Razak A. Meman, the ruling the Authority followed on article 4(1). The Reserve Bank's permission had not been obtained, so the activities are as described by the applicant. The input note described the business connection holding accurately but does not mention that the applicant lost the treaty question outright. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
On the first two questions the Authority ruled that the liaison office would not generate income for the applicant; it would be a cost centre, reimbursed periodically. On the third it ruled that the activities of the liaison office would not amount to having a business connection in India. Applying the three elements it had used in earlier rulings - a real and intimate relation between the trading activity carried on outside India and the activity within, a contribution by that relation to the earning of income, and continuity rather than an isolated nexus - it held that an office acting only as a channel of communication between the Indian customer on one side and the applicant and its principals on the other could not establish the required intimate relation. It added a condition: if the scope of the office were enlarged so that it entered into negotiations for the import or purchase of goods by Indian customers, that would constitute a business connection. On the fourth question the applicant failed. Following its ruling in Abdul Razak A. Meman, the Authority held that the applicant was not entitled to claim the benefit of the agreement, in view of article 4(1).
TaxSphere, “In re Gutal Trading Est”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/gutal-trading-est-vs-unknown-aar-2005/ (validity last checked 2026-09-02)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
We are a US pension trust, exempt from tax at home, investing a small part of our fund in Indian securities. Can we claim the India-US treaty, and are our gains business income?
The Assessing Officer has taxed my client, a UK limited liability partnership, under the Independent Personal Services Article of the treaty because its partners are professionals. Can that Article apply to a firm at all?
Two Mauritius companies my UK parent set up hold shares in an Indian bank. Can we get the India-Mauritius treaty rate on the dividends and exemption on the eventual share gains?
I am an Indian citizen who has lived in Dubai for years and I hold Indian shares and debentures. Can I claim the India-UAE treaty on my dividends, interest and capital gains?
