Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee's supervisory services at the Indian customer's site constituted a permanent establishment in India under the treaty, so as to make the related profits taxable in India.
Analysis: The relevant treaty provisions treated a building site or construction or installation project as a permanent establishment only if it lasted more than six months. The core question was whether the assessee's role in supervising erection and installation by the Indian concern amounted to carrying on an installation project itself. The Tribunal compared the 1985 and 1960 treaty language and found no material change in substance on this point. It accepted that the assessee merely rendered supervisory and technical assistance while the actual erection and installation were undertaken by the Indian concern. On those facts, supervision was held not to be the same as installation, and the treaty provision could not be stretched to cover mere supervisory work as a permanent establishment.
Conclusion: The assessee did not have a permanent establishment in India on account of the supervisory services, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere supervision of an installation project by a non-resident does not, by itself, constitute carrying on the installation project so as to create a permanent establishment under the treaty.