Permanent establishment dispute under tax treaty facts alone did not raise any substantial question of law.

A dispute on permanent establishment under Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and the applicability of section 44B turned on case-specific facts about an Indian agent and the absence of material showing non-arm's-length dealings. The analysis noted that the Tribunal confined itself to the relevant assessment year and proceeded on the basis that Article 5(5) read with Article 5(6) was examined. Because no broader legal issue was decided and the factual foundation for the Revenue's challenge was missing, no substantial question of law arose. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed, and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's appeal gave rise to any substantial question of law on the existence of a permanent establishment in India under Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, and on the applicability of section 44B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Revenue's case rested on the presence and functions of an Indian agent, but the factual findings were confined to the assessee's case for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal had proceeded on the basis that the departmental representative accepted examination under Article 5(5) read with Article 5(6), and no material was shown to establish that the transactions between the assessee and the agent were not at arm's length. In the absence of such foundational facts, and since the Tribunal did not decide any larger question of law beyond the case-specific application of the treaty provisions, no substantial question of law arose.

Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed. The finding that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law was upheld, and the assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding on permanent establishment based on treaty provisions and agent-related facts, when confined to the record and unsupported by material showing non-arm's-length dealings, does not by itself raise a substantial question of law.

---