Permanent Establishment finding under a tax treaty upheld after the Court declined to disturb concurrent factual findings.

The dispute concerned whether the respondent constituted a Permanent Establishment under the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The Court treated the matter as one turning on the factual finding that no Permanent Establishment existed for the relevant assessment year, and noted that an assessment year is a unit by itself. Finding no sufficient basis to interfere with the concurrent finding below, the Court left the determination undisturbed and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent had a Permanent Establishment under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the factual finding recorded below that the respondent did not constitute a Permanent Establishment for the relevant assessment year. The Court noted that the assessment year is a unit by itself and found no sufficient basis to interfere with the concurrent finding against the Revenue.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the finding that the respondent was not a Permanent Establishment was left undisturbed.

---