https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221052 The court held that the appellant did not have a permanent establishment in India for the assessment year 1994-95, as the contract duration was less than six months, complying with the treaty provisions. The specific provision of article 5(3) regarding project duration prevailed over the general provision of article 5(2) including an office as a permanent establishment. As a result, none of the appellant's revenue was taxable in India, and the appeal was dismissed without costs awarded. The judgment clarified the treaty's interpretation on permanent establishment, emphasizing specific provisions over general ones. en-us Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221052 The court held that the appellant did not have a permanent establishment in India for the assessment year 1994-95, as the contract duration was less than six months, complying with the treaty provisions. The specific provision of article 5(3) regarding project duration prevailed over the general provision of article 5(2) including an office as a permanent establishment. As a result, none of the appellant's revenue was taxable in India, and the appeal was dismissed without costs awarded. The judgment clarified the treaty's interpretation on permanent establishment, emphasizing specific provisions over general ones. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221052