https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331169 The Tribunal found that the assessee had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India due to maintaining equipment in Chandigarh and Chennai, despite arguments to the contrary. The issue of attributing income to the PE was remitted for further examination. The classification of payments as "Royalty" or "Fee for Technical Services" was also remitted for re-evaluation. The Tribunal directed a reconsideration of the interest levy under section 234B and the deduction of tax at source rate. All issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, allowing appeals by both parties for statistical purposes. en-us Fri, 01 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:18:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331169 The Tribunal found that the assessee had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India due to maintaining equipment in Chandigarh and Chennai, despite arguments to the contrary. The issue of attributing income to the PE was remitted for further examination. The classification of payments as "Royalty" or "Fee for Technical Services" was also remitted for re-evaluation. The Tribunal directed a reconsideration of the interest levy under section 234B and the deduction of tax at source rate. All issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, allowing appeals by both parties for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 01 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331169