https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301843 Earlier binding rulings in the assessee's own case controlled the Article 5 DTAA question, because the same contractual framework and business activities had already been examined by the jurisdictional High Court. On those identical facts, the Tribunal treated the permanent establishment issue as covered by final findings for prior years and agreed with the CIT(A) that no permanent establishment existed in India for the relevant year. The revenue's challenge to taxation of offshore supply and onshore service receipts therefore failed because the PE issue could not be reopened on the same facts. en-us Mon, 18 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Apr 2022 21:50:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301843 Earlier binding rulings in the assessee's own case controlled the Article 5 DTAA question, because the same contractual framework and business activities had already been examined by the jurisdictional High Court. On those identical facts, the Tribunal treated the permanent establishment issue as covered by final findings for prior years and agreed with the CIT(A) that no permanent establishment existed in India for the relevant year. The revenue's challenge to taxation of offshore supply and onshore service receipts therefore failed because the PE issue could not be reopened on the same facts. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 18 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301843