https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351548 The court held that Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could not be applied due to the provisions of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Japan and India and the US. It was determined that payments made to non-resident entities for purchases should be treated similarly to payments to residents for determining taxable profits. Additionally, the court found that the Revenue failed to prove the existence of Permanent Establishments (PEs) in India for non-resident entities in Thailand and Singapore. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Assessee on both issues, allowing the appeal against the Revenue. en-us Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Nov 2017 11:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351548 The court held that Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could not be applied due to the provisions of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Japan and India and the US. It was determined that payments made to non-resident entities for purchases should be treated similarly to payments to residents for determining taxable profits. Additionally, the court found that the Revenue failed to prove the existence of Permanent Establishments (PEs) in India for non-resident entities in Thailand and Singapore. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Assessee on both issues, allowing the appeal against the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351548