https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346021 The Revenue bore the burden of proving that the liaison office and project offices in India were fixed places of business through which the non-resident carried on business. Mere liaison activity, overlapping supervision, alleged storage of records, or a share of telephone costs was insufficient. The factual findings accepted by the CIT(A) and Tribunal showed that the liaison office performed only liaison and information-gathering functions, while the project offices were treated as separate taxable units; these activities fell within the treaty exclusion for preparatory or auxiliary operations. On that basis, the offices were not a permanent establishment in India and the income directly or indirectly attributable to them was not taxable under the India-Japan DTAA. en-us Thu, 27 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jul 2026 13:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346021 The Revenue bore the burden of proving that the liaison office and project offices in India were fixed places of business through which the non-resident carried on business. Mere liaison activity, overlapping supervision, alleged storage of records, or a share of telephone costs was insufficient. The factual findings accepted by the CIT(A) and Tribunal showed that the liaison office performed only liaison and information-gathering functions, while the project offices were treated as separate taxable units; these activities fell within the treaty exclusion for preparatory or auxiliary operations. On that basis, the offices were not a permanent establishment in India and the income directly or indirectly attributable to them was not taxable under the India-Japan DTAA. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 27 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346021