TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 63
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n India, the Tribunal following its decision in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2012-13 has restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify assessee's claim that the employees of the assessee have rendered service in India for a period less than 90 days in the relevant previous year. The learned Sr. Counsel submitted, in course of assessment proceedings, in response to the query raised by the Assessing Officer, the assessee had furnished the details of employees/personnel who have rendered services in India during the previous year and the number of days for which they have rendered services in India is 42 days, hence, less than 90 days. Therefore, as per Article-5(2)(k)(i) of the India-U.K. Tax Treaty, there is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on record. The issue arising for consideration before the Tribunal was, whether in the year under consideration the assessee had a PE in India? It is the contention of the assessee that during the relevant previous year, assessee's employees/personnel were in India for rendering services for a period of less than 90 days, to be precise, 42 days. It is the further contention of the assessee that the aforesaid factual position has been accepted by the Assessing Officer and learned DRP. However, on a perusal of record we find that though during the assessment proceedings the assessee had made submissions that in the relevant previous year, its employees/personnel were in India for rendering services for a period of 42 days, hence, there is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an aggregate period of 42 days has not been factually verified either by the Assessing Officer or by learned DRP, the Tribunal while allowing the ground raised by the assessee has issued a direction to the Assessing Officer to factually verify assessee's claim regarding stay of its employees/personnel in India for an aggregate period of 42 days during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under dispute. In our considered opinion, there cannot be any mistake in the aforesaid direction of the Tribunal as assessee's claim, though, was made before the Revenue authorities, however, neither the Assessing Officer nor learned DRP has recorded any factual finding regarding the aforesaid claim of the assessee. In the aforesaid fac....