https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457701 The ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee did not constitute a permanent establishment (PE) in India. The Tribunal applied the precedent from a coordinate bench decision involving a group concern, finding that the Indian subsidiary was not an agency PE of the foreign entity. The decision relied on Article 5 of the India-US DTAA and India-Thailand DTAA having similar provisions. Since no PE was established, the question of income attribution became academic. The assessee's appeal was allowed, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the taxpayer on the primary issue of PE existence. en-us Mon, 17 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Sep 2024 23:06:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457701 The ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee did not constitute a permanent establishment (PE) in India. The Tribunal applied the precedent from a coordinate bench decision involving a group concern, finding that the Indian subsidiary was not an agency PE of the foreign entity. The decision relied on Article 5 of the India-US DTAA and India-Thailand DTAA having similar provisions. Since no PE was established, the question of income attribution became academic. The assessee's appeal was allowed, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the taxpayer on the primary issue of PE existence. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 17 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457701