The HC held that the activities of the assessee in India were of...

The HC held that the activities of the assessee in India were of the nature specified in Article 5(4) of the DTAA between India and Korea, and consequently there was no PE in India. The HC agreed with the Tribunal's view that the secondment of employees did not create a deemed PE, as the seconded employees were not discharging functions or performing activities connected with the global enterprise of the assessee. Their placement in India was to facilitate the activities of SIEL. The HC found no error in the Tribunal's decision that a deemed PE had not come into being merely due to the secondment of employees.

---