Dependent agent permanent establishment not established where advertising transactions were principal-to-principal and at arm's length.

The transaction structure was treated as successive purchase and sale of advertisement space on a principal-to-principal basis, with remittance and recovery reflecting independent commercial dealings. Common directorship alone was held insufficient to establish an agency relationship or dependent agent permanent establishment in India under Article 5 of the India-USA tax treaty. The authorities' concurrent finding that the dealings were at arm's length was not shown to be erroneous, and no substantial question of law arose for interference under section 9(2). The department's challenge was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent constituted a dependent agent or permanent establishment in India under Article 5 of the India-USA tax treaty, and whether the transactions between the parties were on a principal-to-principal and arm's length basis.

Analysis: The concurrent findings recorded that the transaction structure showed successive purchase and sale of advertisement space on a principal-to-principal basis, with remittance and recovery reflecting independent commercial dealings. Common directorship, by itself, was held insufficient to establish an agency relationship or permanent establishment. The authorities below had also found that the dealings were at arm's length, and the appellate court saw no error in those factual conclusions. In an appeal under section 9(2), interference was not warranted in the absence of any substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The respondent did not have a dependent agent permanent establishment in India, and the department's challenge was rejected.

---