https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307071 Where the facts were held to be identical to earlier years, the Tribunal followed its prior coordinate bench findings and held that the assessee had a fixed place permanent establishment in India under Article 5 of the India-USA DTAA. It also held that the assessee did not have a dependent agent permanent establishment or a service permanent establishment, because the treaty conditions for those forms of nexus were not met on the record. Receipts from IPLC/link charges were held not taxable as royalty, as the arrangement involved services and reimbursement rather than a right to use equipment or process. Profit attribution to the Indian PE was restored for recomputation in line with the earlier Tribunal methodology. en-us Wed, 11 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Mar 2023 08:40:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307071 Where the facts were held to be identical to earlier years, the Tribunal followed its prior coordinate bench findings and held that the assessee had a fixed place permanent establishment in India under Article 5 of the India-USA DTAA. It also held that the assessee did not have a dependent agent permanent establishment or a service permanent establishment, because the treaty conditions for those forms of nexus were not met on the record. Receipts from IPLC/link charges were held not taxable as royalty, as the arrangement involved services and reimbursement rather than a right to use equipment or process. Profit attribution to the Indian PE was restored for recomputation in line with the earlier Tribunal methodology. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307071