{"id":372176,"date":"2026-01-09T16:30:48","date_gmt":"2026-01-09T11:00:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=372176"},"modified":"2026-01-09T16:32:01","modified_gmt":"2026-01-09T11:02:01","slug":"virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis\/","title":{"rendered":"Virtual Permanent Establishment: Indian High Court Rejects Clamour to Expand Tax Treaty Contours"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The standard models of these tax treaties support taxation rights relating to business income being predominantly invested with the resident State and limited taxation rights being made available to source State.<\/p>\n

Setting the context<\/h2>\n

The current regime of international taxation is predominantly based upon bilateral tax treaties which distribute taxation rights between tax treaty partner countries. The standard models of these tax treaties, namely<\/span>, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)1<\/sup><\/a> and the UN2<\/sup><\/a>, both support taxation rights relating to business income being predominantly invested with the resident State and limited taxation rights being made available to source State. As an exception, source State assert taxation rights over business income where a non-resident (NR) entity carries out business in the source State through a permanent establishment (PE). In such scenario, the source States generally tax the NR entity to the extent of its income being attributable to the PE in the source State. Thus, the existence of the PE and the delineation of its scope and contours under the tax treaty are of critical importance and, consequently, often contested.<\/p>\n

Fixed establishment, or fixed place PE as it is colloquially referred, as a species of PE, is generally found to exist in most treaties. Recently, the Supreme Court of India3<\/sup><\/a> had assigned a rather expansive scope to fixed place PE by declaring that right of over hotels available to an NR entity under the strategic oversight and operational agreement qua such hotels constituted fixed place PE of such NR.4<\/sup><\/a> In another recent judgment, the Delhi High Court had the occasion to examine a rather emerging trend, namely<\/span>, “virtual permanent establishment”.5<\/sup><\/a> The decision presents an opportunity to engage in this interesting aspect which requires detailed consideration in view of the wide ramifications and gain centre-field in the contemporary paradigm considering the significant impetus on technology-driven business. Given that, particularly since COVID<\/span>-19, there is excessively increasing reliance upon virtual meetings, virtual networking, and virtual collaborative business models, etc. in the commercial world, this development is of vital interest to both the businesses and policy-makers alike.<\/p>\n

Dispute before the High Court and its decision<\/h2>\n

The decision of the Delhi High Court has been issued in the context of an appeal by the tax administration against a decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of a prominent international law firm having business activity in India — Clifford Chance Pte. Ltd.<\/span> v. CIT<\/span><\/a>6<\/sup><\/a>. Plainly described, the Revenue sought to tax Clifford Chance on the premise that its activities in India constituted a service PE in India under the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). While the DTAA stipulates a threshold of “183 days in any fiscal year” for the creation of a PE in context of “a building site or construction, installation or assembly project”, qua service PE the DTAA considers sufficient “a period or periods aggregating more than 90 days in any fiscal year” in other cases, and “a period or periods aggregating more than 30 days in any fiscal year” where the services are performed for a related enterprise.7<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The Appellate Tribunal interpreted the DTAA provision to conclude that “actual performance of service in India is essential and accordingly only when the services are rendered by the employees within India with their physical presence during the financial year… shall be taken into account for computing threshold limit for creation of a service PE of the assessee in India”. In concluding so, the Appellate Tribunal had stressed upon the judicial guidance from the Supreme Court8<\/sup><\/a> that for the purpose of examining the existence of service PE in India, the customers of the NR must receive services in India.<\/p>\n

In appeal against the determination of the Appellate Tribunal before the High Court, the Revenue specifically urged that the “Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee does not have a virtual service permanent establishment in India.” Acknowledging that “although the employees of the [NR] were not physically present in India”, the decision of the High Court records that the Revenue urged before it that “the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that there is no mention of the word ‘physical presence’ of employees for constitution of permanent establishment under Article 5(6) of the DTAA. It merely states that furnishing of services within the contracting State should continue for 90 days or more and hence it is only “the continuance of services for the threshold limit of 90 days that matters and not the physical presence of the employees”.<\/p>\n

Stressing upon the need to acknowledge the contemporary paradigm, the Revenue further canvassed that “as a result of rapid digitisation, companies can now continue to provide services even without the physical presence of employees in the contracting State. Thus, a virtual service permanent establishment of the assessee company was established in India, making the receipts on account of those services are taxable in India”.9<\/sup><\/a> The Revenue further highlighted that the concept of virtual service PE was earlier recognised by the Appellate Tribunal.10<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Granting its imprimatur to the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal, the Delhi High Court agreed that the DTAA did not envisage the concept of the virtual PE, observing as under:<\/p>\n

42.<\/span> Article 5(6)(a<\/span>) of the DTAA reads “An enterprise shall be deemed to have a permanent establishment in a Contracting State if it furnishes services… within a contracting State through employees or other personnel…<\/span>”. The words “within a Contracting State” and “through employees or other personnel” contemplate the rendition of services in India by the employees of the non-resident enterprise, while mandating a fixed nexus; a physical footprint within India. The term “within” has a certain territorial connotation and in the absence of personnel physically performing services in India, there can be no furnishing of services “within” India. A plain reading of the whole provision would thus reveal that, it such rendition of services by employees present within the country which would constitute a service permanent establishment.<\/p>\n

43.<\/span> Mr Rai has vehemently contended that receipts on account of virtual services rendered by the assessee must be held to be amenable to taxation in India, since a “virtual service permanent establishment” has been established. We find that no such eventuality is contemplated by the DTAA. The concept of a virtual service permanent establishment does not find mention anywhere in the DTAA. In the absence of any such provision, the argument of Mr Rai would be at variance that the express provisions of the DTAA which we have already interpreted above.<\/p>\n

44<\/span>. At this juncture, we find it necessary to acknowledge that the Revenue may potentially be justified in raising concerns regarding taxability of foreign entities in the increasingly open global virtual economy, and the diminishing requirement of physical presence of non-resident employees to furnish services. However, taxability of entities in such instances, as always, remains subject to the applicable provisions of law<\/span> — both treaty and domestic.<\/span><\/p>\n

45.<\/span> The law insofar as the present controversy is concerned, is clear and unambiguous. The DTAA, which has been carefully drafted and executed after numerous rounds of bilateral deliberations and negotiations at the highest level, must necessarily be interpreted strictly. If something is conspicuous by its absence, the presumption is that it has deliberately been done so. It is not for courts to read in concepts which are not expressly provided for by the treaty. The guiding principle here is that language which is not explicitly included in treaty provisions cannot be artificially read into such provisions by way of judicial fiction.11<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The High Court, in the passing, duly noted the Government’s steps at the international tax platforms but refused to give effect to the political efforts until the amendments were effectuated in the DTAA and the legal framework. To this end, the following observations of the High Court are noteworthy:<\/p>\n

49<\/span>. That being said, it is necessary to note that the comments made by India as recorded in the OECD Model Convention, and also the concept of Significant Economic Presence (SEP) brought about in the domestic tax jurisdiction through the Finance Act, 2018<\/a>, do reflect a deliberate policy to capture digital or virtual economic participation outside the traditional permanent establishment framework. It may also be true that certain jurisdictions have moved away from the requirement of physical presence of employees to constitute a service permanent establishment. However, the same has not been administratively recognised by India, and in the absence of any changes made to the treaty provisions of the DTAA, such developments do not alter the interpretive constraints imposed by the wordings of the DTAA, which is applicable on all fours to the instant case. In fact, until Article 5(6) of the DTAA is renegotiated or supplemented, the existing treaty framework does not extend to virtual or digital services provided from abroad.12<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The High Court, furthermore, distinguished the other decisions relied upon by the Revenue, including decisions of foreign courts<\/span>13<\/sup><\/a>, opining that they were rendered in a different factual setting and had no bearing to the determination of the question relating to virtual PE. Thus, the Delhi High Court has affirmatively ruled out virtual PE in the context of Indian DTAA and is arguably the first decision of an Indian High Court to conclude such.<\/span><\/p>\n

Reflections<\/h2>\n

The anxiety to expand the scope of source State taxation rights is not exceptional. One would note that there has been hardly any progressive movement in the expansion of their taxation rights since the original evolution of the bilateral tax treaty models. No doubt, various anti-avoidance provisions, particularly those arising from OECD base erosion and profit shifting<\/span><\/span> (BEPS)<\/span>14<\/sup><\/a> and Multilateral Instrument<\/span>15<\/sup><\/a> (MLI) have empowered the source State to deny tax treaty relief by addressing specific anti-avoidance devices and even anti-avoidance generally, with the enactment of the “principal purpose test”.<\/span>16<\/sup><\/a> Nonetheless, the taxation rights of the source State have not been revisited, barring certain exceptions, such as taxation of digital services.<\/span>17<\/sup><\/a> Furthermore, the decade long movement, pioneer by OECD towards adoption of the Two-Pillar Framework to expand taxation rights relating to digital economy and beyond<\/span>18<\/sup><\/a>, is virtually at a standstill.<\/span><\/p>\n

Given the lack of forthcoming revisitation of taxation rights, it is not unnatural to expect countries and taxation authorities to explore if new ideas can be inseminated within the existing taxation paradigm. Virtual PE appears to be an outcome of similar approach where NR’s digital business are sought to be taxed within the PE framework. In this process, however, contemporary business realities are being tested on the touchstone of the finer text of tax treaties which have been negotiated in a different era and have been in vogue for decades, thereby having attained certainty on their scope and remit. Thus, whether it is the right approach on the part of the tax administrations to look for newer meaning in the scope of these tax treaties — which may not just be a manner of semantics but stretch the existing paradigm with consequential ramifications both domestically and internationally — is a moot question. No doubt, the decision of the Delhi High Court may not be the last word on the subject as the issue is likely to be retested in other judicial forum including by way of appeal to the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, as the decision reveals, the enforcement of such novelty and administration of such improvised concepts will have to be contested before the dispute resolution forums which are unlikely to abandon their traditional interpretative techniques only in the wake of securing additional taxation rights for the Government without any change in the legal setting or the statutory text of the tax treaties.<\/p>\n

To be fair, the decision of the High Court acknowledges the Revenue’s desire to address the modern business practices and implores the Government to bring about suitable changes in the legal regime, thus setting right the scheme that the burden to tax is a legislative and executive exercise and it is not the judiciary’s responsibility to course-correct the tax treaties and their attendant legal framework through the process of their interpretation. At another level, the fact that this issue got litigated before the High Court (having already been rejected at the Appellate Tribunal level), illustrates the ongoing jostle between the tax authorities and the taxpayers to defend their respective positions which have been pedestaled on the fine text of the tax treaties as historically understood, never having been intended to address such emerging business paradigms. One can only anticipate rise in similar disputes with the increase in monetary stakes and progressive adoption of newer business models given the additional cost and commercial advantages offered by technological progression.<\/p>\n

On the merits of the issue — whether a virtual PE is envisaged in the tax treaty paradigm — so far, the PE-related jurisprudence of India has only accommodated physical-structure based existence of PE. No matter how short or temporary the duration of stay, such as the Formula One<\/span> World Champion Ltd.<\/span> v. CIT<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span>19<\/sup><\/a>, where access to physical premises for a matter of few days was considered sufficient for a fixed place PE, nonetheless, even in that case there was physical access to immovable property located in the source State, and thus the importance of physical presence for the existence of a PE is overwhelming. The question which naturally arises, therefore, is that in a virtual setting when no physical access to a location in the source State is required, much less availed, how far PE can be considered to exist in the source State. There are certain precedents wherein technological innovations (such as website servers) have been accommodated within the tax treaty paradigm and it has been concluded that PE exists; however, the concept of virtual PE poses a different set of challenges and there appears to be academic consensus that virtual PE cannot be accommodated in the existing Indian tax treaty space and jurisprudence.<\/span>20<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

It is noteworthy that the domestic law has enacted a new taxation basis — “Significant Economic Presence” test — to tax virtually generated income in certain situations<\/span>21<\/sup><\/a> and thus the physical presence requirement cannot be insisted by NR without the benefit of tax treaties. Nonetheless, given the expansive tax treaty network of India, without formal amendment of these treaties, the domestic law progression may not be sufficient to tax NRs entitled to tax treaty protection.<\/span>22<\/sup><\/a> Thus, as the Delhi High Court has cautioned, the only way forward is that the tax treaty paradigm “is renegotiated or supplemented, [because] the existing treaty framework does not extend to virtual or digital services provided from abroad”. Given the ongoing bilateral attempts to renegotiate or modify tax treaties, it may not be a far cry to address the issue of virtual PE in similar setting. The WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) envisages four-modes of trade in services wherein the very first mode “cross-border supply” addresses “services flow from the territory of one member into the territory of another member (e.g. banking or architectural services transmitted via telecommunications or mail)”.<\/span>23<\/sup><\/a> Thus, the GATS template sheds invaluable guidance for the negotiation of tax treaty revisit qua virtual PE. Its mechanics may be factored by the tax treaty partners to refresh the tax treaties and modernise them by factoring the contemporary technology drivers of business.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

*Advocate, Supreme Court of India; LLM, London School of Economics; BBA, LLB (Hons.) (Double Gold Medalist), National Law University, Jodhpur. The author can be reached at mailtotarunjain@gmail.com<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2017, available at <https:\/\/read.oecd-ilibrary.org\/taxation\/model-tax-convention-on-income-and-on-capital-condensed-version-2017_mtc_cond-2017-en<\/a>>.<\/span><\/p>\n

2.<\/a> United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries 2017, available at <https:\/\/www.un.org\/esa\/ffd\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/MDT_2017.pdf<\/a>>.<\/span><\/p>\n

3.<\/a> Hyatt International Southwest Asia Ltd.<\/span> v. CIT<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2025) 478 ITR 238<\/a> : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1506<\/a>.<\/p>\n

4.<\/a> For details, see<\/span>, Tarun Jain, “Supreme Court of India Delineates Principles to Determine Fixed Place Permanent Establishment: Warning Bells for Foreign Law Firms Intending to Set Shop in India?”, available at <https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/20\/supreme-court-of-india-delineates-principles-to-determine-fixed-place-permanent-establishment-warning-bells-for-foreign-law-firms-intending-to-set-shop-in-india\/<\/a>>.<\/span><\/p>\n

5.<\/a> CIT<\/span> v. Clifford Chance Pte. Ltd.<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8771<\/a>.<\/p>\n

6.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine ITAT 8879<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

7.<\/a> DTAA, Art. 5(6).<\/p>\n

8.<\/a> CIT<\/span> v. E-Funds IT Solution Inc.<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2018) 13 SCC 294<\/a> : (2017) 399 ITR 34.<\/p>\n

9.<\/a> Relying upon Verizon Communications Singapore (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. CIT<\/span><\/span><\/a>, 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 3316 : (2014) 361 ITR 575<\/a>.<\/p>\n

10.<\/a> Referring to ABB FZ-LLC<\/span> v. CIT<\/span><\/span>, 2017 SCC OnLine ITAT 20403<\/a>.<\/p>\n

11.<\/a> CIT<\/span> v. Clifford Chance Pte. Ltd.<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8771<\/a>.<\/p>\n

12.<\/a> CIT<\/span> v. Clifford Chance Pte. Ltd<\/span>., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8771<\/a>.<\/p>\n

13.<\/a> These were; South African Tax Court at Johannesburg in AB LLC and BD Holdings LLC<\/span> and the Commr. of the South African Revenue Services<\/span>, Case No. 13276 of 2015 decided on 15-5-2015; Spanish Supreme Court in Spain<\/span> v. Dell<\/span>, Tribunal Supremo, STS No. 2861 of 2016; Case No. 1475 of 2016 decided on 20-6-2016.<\/p>\n

14.<\/a> “Domestic tax base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) relates to tax planning strategies that multinational enterprises use to exploit loopholes in tax rules to artificially shift profits to low or no-tax locations as a way to avoid paying tax. The OECD\/G20 BEPS Project equips Governments with rules and instruments to address tax avoidance, ensuring that profits are taxed where economic activities generating them take place and where value is created.” For details, see<\/span>, OECD BEPS, available at <https:\/\/www.oecd.org\/en\/topics\/policy-issues\/base-erosion-and-profit-shifting-beps.html<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

15.<\/a> “The Multilateral Instrument (BEPS MLI) offers concrete solutions for Governments to close loopholes in international tax treaties by transposing results from the BEPS Project into bilateral tax treaties worldwide. The BEPS MLI allows Governments to implement agreed minimum standards to counter treaty abuse and to improve dispute resolution mechanisms while providing flexibility to accommodate specific tax treaty policies.” For details, see<\/span>, OECD Multilateral Instrument, available at <https:\/\/www.oecd.org\/en\/topics\/sub-issues\/beps-multilateral-instrument.html<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

16.<\/a> Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, Art. 7 enacts a provision for “prevention of treaty abuse” to provide the following:<\/p>\n

7. Notwithstanding any provisions of a Covered Tax Agreement, a benefit under the Covered Tax Agreement shall not be granted in respect of an item of income or capital if it is reasonable to conclude, having regard to all relevant facts and circumstances, that obtaining that benefit was one of the principal purposes of any arrangement or transaction that resulted directly or indirectly in that benefit, unless it is established that granting that benefit in these circumstances would be in accordance with the object and purpose of the relevant provisions of the Covered Tax Agreement.<\/p>\n

Available at https:\/\/www.oecd.org\/content\/dam\/oecd\/en\/topics\/policy-sub-issues\/beps-mli\/multilateral-convention-to-implement-tax-treaty-related-measures-to-prevent-beps.pdf<\/a>><\/span>; OECD’s Explanatory Statement to the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, available at <https:\/\/www.oecd.org\/content\/dam\/oecd\/en\/topics\/policy-sub-issues\/beps-mli\/explanatory-statement-multilateral-convention-to-implement-tax-treaty-related-measures-to-prevent-beps.pdf<\/a>>.<\/span><\/p>\n

17.<\/a> See<\/span>, United Nations Model Tax Convention, Article 12-B “Income from Automated Digital Services”, available at <https:\/\/financing.desa.un.org\/sites\/default\/files\/2023-03\/Article%2012B%20and%20Commentary%20after%2022nd%20Session%20Meetings%2029%20April%202021.pdf<\/a>>.<\/span><\/p>\n

18.<\/a> See generally<\/span>, OECD, Statement on a Two-Pillar Solution to Address the Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy (8-10-2021) available at <https:\/\/www.oecd.org\/content\/dam\/oecd\/en\/topics\/policy-issues\/beps\/statement-on-a-two-pillar-solution-to-address-the-tax-challenges-arising-from-the-digitalisation-of-the-economy-october-2021.pdf<\/a>>.<\/span><\/p>\n

19.<\/a> (2017) 15 SCC 602<\/a> : (2017) 394 ITR 80.<\/p>\n

20.<\/a> “Although a server on which a company’s website is stored and through which it is accessible, constitutes, for the purpose of Article 5, a ‘fixed place of business’ of the foreign company that operates that server; a website, which is a combination of software and electronic data, does not have a location that can constitute a ‘place of business’ because there is no ‘facility such as premises or, in certain instances, machinery or equipment’ as far as the software and data constituting that website is concerned.” See<\/span>, Ashish Goel and Shilpa Goel, “Has the ‘Permanent Establishment Rule’ Outlived Its Utility in a Digitalised World?”, (2018) 11(1) NUJS L. Rev. 25-47 at 34. See<\/span> further<\/span>, Meyyappan Nagappan and Anandapadmanabhan Unnikrishnan, “Virtual Permanent Establishments: Indian Law and Practice”, (2018) 46 Intertax 520-540. Also see<\/span>, Akanksha Yadav, “Permanent Establishment in Digital Economy” (2022) 1 HPNLU JLBE 82-92 at 92 to the effect that to “ensure that the [Source] State does not lose on the revenue from taxation and that enterprises do not misuse the advancement of technology to evade the taxes of the nation from where they earning their substantial part of the revenue while a virtual permanent establishment approach would better serve the purpose of international trade rather than unilateral measures such as equalisation levies”.<\/p>\n

21.<\/a> Income Tax Act, 1961<\/a><\/span> S. 9(1)(i<\/span>)<\/span><\/a> Explanation<\/span> 2-A.<\/p>\n

22.<\/a> It is interesting to note that a similar argument was canvassed before the Delhi High Court which records the submission that “unilateral amendments made in the Act cannot override the provisions of the DTAA. To buttress this argument, he has referred to the judgments in CIT<\/span> v. New Skies Satellite BV<\/span><\/span><\/a>, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 796 : (2016) 382 ITR 114<\/a> approved in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. CIT<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2022) 3 SCC 321<\/a> : (2021) 1 IPLR 86 : (2021) 432 ITR 471; and CIT<\/span> v. Telstra Singapore (P) Ltd.<\/span><\/span><\/a>, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5016 : (2024) 467 ITR 302<\/a>.”<\/p>\n

23.<\/a> World Trade Organisation, The General agreement on Trade in Services (GATS): Objectives, Coverage and Disciplines, available at <https:\/\/www.wto.org\/english\/tratop_e\/serv_e\/gatsqa_e.htm<\/a>>.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Tarun Jain*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":372183,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[20271,31771],"tags":[96558,96556,81045,96559,96557,96555],"class_list":["post-372176","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-experts_corner","category-articles-by-tarun-jain-on-indirect-tax-issues","tag-clifford-chance-pe-case","tag-delhi-high-court-pe-ruling","tag-international-taxation-india","tag-permanent-establishment-jurisprudence","tag-service-pe-dtaa-india-singapore","tag-virtual-permanent-establishment"],"yoast_head":"\nVirtual Permanent Establishment Rejected by Delhi High Court | Tax Treaty Analysis | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court rejects virtual permanent establishment under tax treaties, reaffirming physical presence as essential for service PE.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Virtual Permanent Establishment: Indian High Court Rejects Clamour to Expand Tax Treaty Contours\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court rejects virtual permanent establishment under tax treaties, reaffirming physical presence as essential for service PE.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-01-09T11:00:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-01-09T11:02:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Virtual-Permanent-Establishment-India.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Virtual Permanent Establishment: Indian High Court Rejects Clamour to Expand Tax Treaty Contours\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis\/\",\"name\":\"Virtual Permanent Establishment Rejected by Delhi High Court | Tax Treaty Analysis | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Virtual-Permanent-Establishment-India.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-01-09T11:00:48+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-01-09T11:02:01+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court rejects virtual permanent establishment under tax treaties, reaffirming physical presence as essential for service PE.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Virtual-Permanent-Establishment-India.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Virtual-Permanent-Establishment-India.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Virtual Permanent Establishment India\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Virtual Permanent Establishment: Indian High Court Rejects Clamour to Expand Tax Treaty Contours\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Virtual Permanent Establishment Rejected by Delhi High Court | Tax Treaty Analysis | SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court rejects virtual permanent establishment under tax treaties, reaffirming physical presence as essential for service PE.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Virtual Permanent Establishment: Indian High Court Rejects Clamour to Expand Tax Treaty Contours","og_description":"Delhi High Court rejects virtual permanent establishment under tax treaties, reaffirming physical presence as essential for service PE.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-01-09T11:00:48+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-01-09T11:02:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Virtual-Permanent-Establishment-India.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Virtual Permanent Establishment: Indian High Court Rejects Clamour to Expand Tax Treaty Contours","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis\/","name":"Virtual Permanent Establishment Rejected by Delhi High Court | Tax Treaty Analysis | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Virtual-Permanent-Establishment-India.webp","datePublished":"2026-01-09T11:00:48+00:00","dateModified":"2026-01-09T11:02:01+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Delhi High Court rejects virtual permanent establishment under tax treaties, reaffirming physical presence as essential for service PE.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Virtual-Permanent-Establishment-India.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Virtual-Permanent-Establishment-India.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Virtual Permanent Establishment India"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/virtual-permanent-establishment-delhi-high-court-tax-treaty-analysis\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Virtual Permanent Establishment: Indian High Court Rejects Clamour to Expand Tax Treaty Contours"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Virtual-Permanent-Establishment-India.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":332623,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/07\/revisiting-distinct-status-of-permanent-establishment-international-taxation\/","url_meta":{"origin":372176,"position":0},"title":"Revisiting Distinct Status of Permanent Establishment in International Taxation","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 7, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"by Tarun Jain*","rel":"","context":"In "Experts Corner"","block_context":{"text":"Experts Corner","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Permanent Establishment in International Taxation","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Permanent-Establishment-in-International-Taxation.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Permanent-Establishment-in-International-Taxation.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Permanent-Establishment-in-International-Taxation.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Permanent-Establishment-in-International-Taxation.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":298435,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/03\/tax-sparing-under-indian-tax-treaties-delhi-high-court-expounds-the-law\/","url_meta":{"origin":372176,"position":1},"title":"\u2018Tax Sparing\u2019 under Indian Tax Treaties: Delhi High Court Expounds the Law","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 3, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"By Tarun Jain\u2020 Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 66","rel":"","context":"In "Experts Corner"","block_context":{"text":"Experts Corner","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"indian tax treaties","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/indian-tax-treaties.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/indian-tax-treaties.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/indian-tax-treaties.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/indian-tax-treaties.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":127011,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/04\/25\/formula-one-liable-to-taxation-for-the-business-conducted-though-its-permanent-establishment-i-e-buddh-international-circuit\/","url_meta":{"origin":372176,"position":2},"title":"Formula One liable to taxation for the business conducted though it\u2019s permanent establishment i.e. Buddh International Circuit","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"April 25, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Holding that Formula One World Championship Limited (FOWC) is liable to taxation for organising the Formula One Grand Prix of India event for a consideration of US$ 40 million, the Court said that FOWC has a \u2018permanent establishment\u2019 (PE) in India i.e. a fixed place of business in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":195840,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/05\/07\/the-impact-of-beps-action-plan-and-finance-bill-2018-on-artificial-avoidance-of-permanent-establishment-under-the-income-tax-act-1961\/","url_meta":{"origin":372176,"position":3},"title":"The impact of BEPS Action Plan And Finance Bill, 2018 on artificial avoidance of permanent establishment under the Income Tax Act, 1961","author":"Saba","date":"May 7, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"by Swapnil Tripathi*","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/Tax_Permanent-Establishment.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/Tax_Permanent-Establishment.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/Tax_Permanent-Establishment.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/Tax_Permanent-Establishment.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/Tax_Permanent-Establishment.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":372481,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-rejects-clifford-chances-claim-of-virtual-service-pe-under-dtaa\/","url_meta":{"origin":372176,"position":4},"title":"Know why Delhi High Court rejected Virtual Service PE to Clifford Chance under DTAA","author":"Prarthana Gupta","date":"January 13, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe words \u2018within a Contracting State\u2019 in Article 5(6) mandate a physical footprint and cannot be expanded to include virtual service permanent establishments.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Clifford Chance virtual service PE","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Clifford-Chance-virtual-service-PE-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Clifford-Chance-virtual-service-PE-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Clifford-Chance-virtual-service-PE-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Clifford-Chance-virtual-service-PE-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":297065,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/18\/rgnul-two-credit-course-on-past-present-and-future-of-international-tax-law-register-by-july-31-2023\/","url_meta":{"origin":372176,"position":5},"title":"RGNUL Two Credit Course on Past, Present and Future of International Tax Law [Register by July 31, 2023]","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 18, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab is organising a two credit course discussing the issues under International Taxation and Double Tax Avoidance Agreements along with their Interpretation. About RGNUL Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Punjab, was established by the State Legislature of Punjab by passing the Rajiv\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Law School News"","block_context":{"text":"Law School News","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/lawschoolnews\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"international tax law","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/international-tax-law.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/international-tax-law.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/international-tax-law.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/international-tax-law.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/372176","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=372176"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/372176\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/372183"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=372176"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=372176"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=372176"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}