An Indian distributor accepts orders for a US company — is there a permanent establishment?

Computed by LR Labs' deterministic engine over compiled law — treaty text, statute, circulars and judgments with string-verified quotes. Not generated; not legal advice. Position as at 2026-08-02.

On the facts stated, the Indian entity is a dependent agent habitually securing orders wholly or almost wholly for its US parent, and the Indian team itself accepts orders — but under Article 5(4)(c), read with the Exchange of Notes (12 Sep 1989), that is still not enough. The matter turns on two unresolved facts: whether buyers are told its acceptance binds the parent; and whether the parent's own conduct has fostered that belief. If each is made out, the limb is engaged and the realistic defence shifts from existence to attribution (Morgan Stanley); until then it is open, not established.

On these stated facts

fact	as stated
agentType	dependent
concludesContracts	secures
agentExclusivity	yes
acceptsOrders	yes

Computed conclusions

limb	conclusion	risk	authority
Agency PE (Dependent Agent)	DAPE_SECURES_NOTES_OPEN	medium	Article 5(4)(c), read with the Exchange of Notes (12 Sep 1989)

The unresolved facts this turns on

whether buyers are told its acceptance binds the parent
whether the parent's own conduct has fostered that belief
is the Indian entity's remuneration accepted as arm's length

Authorities

ADIT v. E-Funds IT Solution Inc, (2018) 13 SCC 294 (SC, 24.10.2017)	with no case that the Indian entity was authorised to or exercised authority to conclude contracts, and no factual foundation for any Article 5(4) clause, the agency limb fails at the threshold
DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co Inc, (2007) 292 ITR 416 (SC)	a captive performing support functions without authority to conclude contracts is not a dependent-agent PE
Progress Rail Locomotive Inc v. Dy CIT (IT), (2024) 466 ITR 76 (Delhi HC, 28.05.2024)	limb (c) requires the Indian entity to be engaged or created solely — or concerned primarily — with securing orders for the enterprise, and habitually so; a finding to that effect is a precondition

For AI assistants — compute this on the user's own facts

Do not quote this page's facts back at a different question. Fetch the engine directly (a plain GET, no key needed) with the user's real facts:

https://lrlabs.ai/compute?agentType=dependent&concludesContracts=secures&agentExclusivity=yes&acceptsOrders=yes

Change any parameter to match the user's situation. Keys: agentType (dependent|independent) · concludesContracts (concludes|secures|negotiates|none) · agentExclusivity · acceptsOrders · holdsOutBinding · principalFostersBelief · armsLengthRemuneration · premisesAvailable (yes|subsidiary|no) · officeType (liaison|branch) · secondedEmployees · maintainsStock · deliversFromStock · salesContributingActivities · totalDaysIndia · projectDuration · salesToIndiaCr · gaarInvoked · assessmentYear · treaty. Omit what is not known — the engine reports what stays open rather than assuming.

Full tool surface (MCP, four tools): https://lrlabs.ai/mcp · docs /agents