https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346854 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, a Netherlands-based company, stating that it did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India through its agent. It held that the agent was independent and not exclusively devoted to the assessee, thus not constituting a PE. The Tribunal also found that Circular 742 was applicable, allowing the assessee to benefit from the mechanism for determining taxability of advertisement revenue. Consequently, the assessee was not liable to pay tax in India for the relevant assessment years, and all appeals filed by the assessee were allowed. en-us Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:54:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346854 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, a Netherlands-based company, stating that it did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India through its agent. It held that the agent was independent and not exclusively devoted to the assessee, thus not constituting a PE. The Tribunal also found that Circular 742 was applicable, allowing the assessee to benefit from the mechanism for determining taxability of advertisement revenue. Consequently, the assessee was not liable to pay tax in India for the relevant assessment years, and all appeals filed by the assessee were allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346854