Effective connection test under the India-Japan DTAA controls whether interest is taxed at treaty rate or as business income.

Interest on supplier credit and related trade finance receipts remained taxable at the treaty rate under Article 11(2) of the India-Japan DTAA because the Revenue did not prove effective connection with the Indian permanent establishment. Article 11(6) displaces the concessional interest article only where the debt-claim is directly or indirectly attributable to the permanent establishment or fixed base; mere existence of a permanent establishment is insufficient. On the record, no cogent material showed that the permanent establishment played any role in earning the interest, so business-income taxation under Article 7 was not warranted and the treaty-rate treatment was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether interest income on supplier's credit and related trade finance receipts was taxable at the concessional rate under Article 11(2) of the India-Japan DTAA or at business income rates under Article 11(6) read with Article 7 on the basis that such income was effectively connected with the assessee's permanent establishment in India.

Analysis: The applicable treaty scheme permits source State taxation of interest at the treaty rate under Article 11(2), while Article 11(6) excludes that regime only where the debt-claim is effectively connected with a permanent establishment or fixed base, in which case Article 7 or Article 14 applies. Mere existence of a permanent establishment is not enough. The decisive requirement is that the interest income must be directly or indirectly attributable to the permanent establishment, and the Revenue must establish a real nexus with cogent material. On the record, no specific material showed that the supplier-credit or other interest receipts were attributable to the Indian permanent establishment, nor that the permanent establishment played any role in earning such interest.

Conclusion: The interest income was not shown to be effectively connected with the permanent establishment, so Article 11(2) continued to apply. The Revenue's challenge failed and the assessee's treatment of the interest income at the treaty rate was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: For Article 11(6) of the India-Japan DTAA to displace taxation under Article 11(2), the Revenue must prove that the interest income is attributable to the permanent establishment or fixed base, not merely that such establishment exists.

---