India vs Samsung Electronics: CASE SUMMARY

Case Information

  • Court: High Court of Delhi
  • Case No: ITA 1029/2018 and connected matters
  • Applicant: The Pr. Commissioner of Income TaxInternational Taxation – 3
  • Defendant: Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
  • Judgment Date: 15 January 2025
  • Download the FULL JUDGMENT

Judgment Summary

The High Court of Delhi ruled on appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (ITAT) earlier decisions. The core dispute revolved around whether Samsung’s Indian subsidiary, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (SIEL), constituted a Permanent Establishment (PE) of Samsung Korea under Article 5 of the India-Korea Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

The Income Tax Department argued that the activities conducted by expatriates seconded to SIEL exceeded preparatory or auxiliary functions, creating a Fixed Place PE or Service PE. It cited close interactions between expatriates and Samsung Korea as evidence of operational control. Conversely, Samsung contended that SIEL operated as a separate legal entity, with expatriates employed locally under tripartite agreements. Their roles, the company argued, were confined to supporting SIEL’s Indian business.

The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and ITAT had ruled in Samsung Korea’s favour, asserting that the expatriates’ functions aligned with SIEL’s business and did not establish a PE. The Delhi High Court upheld these decisions, emphasising that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Samsung Korea conducted its business in India through SIEL. The expatriates’ activities were deemed to benefit SIEL alone, with no direct control exerted by Samsung Korea.

The Court highlighted that Article 5 of the DTAA requires concrete evidence of business management or operational control by the foreign entity to establish a PE. It found no such evidence in the present case. Further, remuneration arrangements complied with transfer pricing regulations and did not indicate disguised control. The Court reiterated that the mere subsidiary-parent relationship does not automatically constitute a PE.

This judgment underscores the importance of differentiating between local subsidiary activities and parent company operations under international tax treaties. For multinationals, it reaffirms the need for robust governance structures and compliance with transfer pricing standards to avoid disputes. The ruling also serves as a reminder to tax authorities to base their assessments on substantive evidence rather than assumptions.

VIEW THE FULL CASE SUMMARY (WEB)

File Type: pdf
File Size: 212 KB
Countries: India
Tags: Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, CUP, Double Tax Treaty, DTA, International Tax, PE, Permanent Establishment, Tax Compliance, Transfer Pricing