https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219773 A rectification application under section 254(2) was rejected because the alleged non-consideration of Article 7(3) of the India-UK DTAA was not a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal held that its earlier reasoning on attribution of profits to the permanent establishment had already examined the treaty provisions, including the appellate discussion of Article 7(3), and had interpreted Article 7(1) as incorporating the force of attraction rule through the words "directly or indirectly attributable." The challenge was treated as an attempt to reargue treaty interpretation, which amounts to review rather than rectification. The miscellaneous application therefore failed and the earlier order remained undisturbed. en-us Wed, 19 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219773 A rectification application under section 254(2) was rejected because the alleged non-consideration of Article 7(3) of the India-UK DTAA was not a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal held that its earlier reasoning on attribution of profits to the permanent establishment had already examined the treaty provisions, including the appellate discussion of Article 7(3), and had interpreted Article 7(1) as incorporating the force of attraction rule through the words "directly or indirectly attributable." The challenge was treated as an attempt to reargue treaty interpretation, which amounts to review rather than rectification. The miscellaneous application therefore failed and the earlier order remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219773