https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271342 The court held that the Assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India as defined in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with the UAE. The Project Office in Mumbai was deemed to have activities of a preparatory or auxiliary character, excluding it from constituting a PE. Additionally, the court found that the Assessee did not have an Installation PE or a Dependent Agent PE in India. Consequently, no income could be attributed to the Assessee's PE, leading to the setting aside of assessment and ITAT orders for the relevant years. The appeals were disposed of with parties bearing their own costs. en-us Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 May 2016 17:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271342 The court held that the Assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India as defined in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with the UAE. The Project Office in Mumbai was deemed to have activities of a preparatory or auxiliary character, excluding it from constituting a PE. Additionally, the court found that the Assessee did not have an Installation PE or a Dependent Agent PE in India. Consequently, no income could be attributed to the Assessee's PE, leading to the setting aside of assessment and ITAT orders for the relevant years. The appeals were disposed of with parties bearing their own costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271342