https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337901 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that "slot hire charges" were covered under Article 8 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and UAE, exempting them from tax in India. The Tribunal criticized the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and Assessing Officer (AO) for not properly considering the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) decision and directed adherence to it. The Tribunal found that the assessee's agent did not constitute a Permanent Establishment in India. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Fri, 18 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2017 11:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337901 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that "slot hire charges" were covered under Article 8 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and UAE, exempting them from tax in India. The Tribunal criticized the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and Assessing Officer (AO) for not properly considering the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) decision and directed adherence to it. The Tribunal found that the assessee's agent did not constitute a Permanent Establishment in India. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 18 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337901