{"question":"What is the service PE threshold under the India–Germany treaty?","url":"https://lrlabs.ai/q/service-pe-threshold-india-germany-183-days","law_as_at":"30 Jul 2026","facts_as_stated":{"totalDaysIndia":"120","agentType":"independent","concludesContracts":"none"},"meta":{"engine":"deterministic","llm_in_path":false,"corridor":"India–Germany","latency_ms":0.43,"determinate_screen":true},"answer":{"chips":[{"label":"Service PE — medium","level":"medium"},{"label":"Agency PE (Dependent Agent) — low","level":"low"}],"plain_line":"Service PE exposure is contestable on these facts.","paragraph":"The service-PE day threshold is not met. The independent-agent exclusion holds. Across the border, USA domestic law independently raises: US trade or business per se — services limb (IRC §864(b)(1)).","changers":["the agent's exclusivity yes → Agency PE (Dependent Agent) rises low → medium","the day count at 184 → Service PE rises low → high"],"deciding_facts":[],"determinacy":{"mechanical":2,"open":0,"resolved_by_composition":0,"index":1.0},"assembled":"deterministic"},"findings":[{"pe_type":"agency","pe_label":"Agency PE (Dependent Agent)","risk":"low","unsettled":false,"conclusion":"NO_DAPE_INDEPENDENT","pinpoint":"Article 5(6)","rationale":"[Article 5(6), India–Germany DTAA (1995)] A genuinely independent agent is excluded from the agency limb. (Western Union, ITAT 2007.)","missing_facts":[],"authorities":[{"citation":"ADIT v. E-Funds IT Solution Inc, (2018) 13 SCC 294 (SC, 24.10.2017)","pinpoint":"para 21","element":"authority_conclude","proposition":"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","disposition":"taxpayer"},{"citation":"DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co Inc, (2007) 292 ITR 416 (SC)","pinpoint":null,"element":"authority_conclude","proposition":"a captive performing support functions without authority to conclude contracts is not a dependent-agent PE","disposition":"taxpayer"},{"citation":"Progress Rail Locomotive Inc v. Dy CIT (IT), (2024) 466 ITR 76 (Delhi HC, 28.05.2024)","pinpoint":"para 111","element":"authority_conclude","proposition":"the DAPE authority limb requires authority to conclude contracts to be conferred AND habitually exercised; with no conferral shown, habituality never arises","disposition":"taxpayer"},{"citation":"Progress Rail Locomotive Inc v. Dy CIT (IT), (2024) 466 ITR 76 (Delhi HC, 28.05.2024)","pinpoint":"para 112","element":"wholly_almost_wholly","proposition":"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","disposition":"taxpayer"}]},{"pe_type":"service","pe_label":"Service PE","risk":"medium","unsettled":false,"conclusion":"SERVICE_THRESHOLD_NOT_MET","pinpoint":"Article 5(2)(i)","rationale":"[Article 5(2)(i), India–Germany DTAA (1995)] Aggregate presence does not exceed the 183-day limb. Aggregate presence of 120 days approaches the 183-day limb; not yet triggered, but at risk if further visits occur or aggregation applies.","missing_facts":[],"authorities":[]}],"proof":null,"exposure_map":[{"jurisdiction":"USA","exposure":"high","headline":"US trade or business per se — services limb","pinpoint":"IRC §864(b)(1)"},{"jurisdiction":"Canada","exposure":"medium","headline":"Withholding at source regardless of treaty outcome","pinpoint":"Income Tax Regulations, Reg 105"}],"overall_risk":"medium"}