Sec. 90 of Income-tax Act, 1961— Double taxation relief - This appeal by the Department revisits the question as to the taxability of income attributable to a "permanent establishment" set up in a fixed place in India, arising from the ‘Agreement for avoidance of double taxation of income and the prevention of fiscal evasion’ with the Republic of Korea. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the revenue holding that “This being the case, it is clear, therefore, that no PE has been set up within the meaning of Art. 5(1) of the DTAA, as the Mumbai Project Office cannot be said to be a fixed place of business through which the core business of the assessee was wholly or partly carried on. Also, as correctly argued by Shri Ganesh, the Mumbai Project Office, on the facts of the present case, would fall within Art. 5(4)(e) of the DTAA, in as much as the office is solely an auxiliary office, meant to act as a Liaison Office between the assessee and ONGC. This being the case, it is not necessary to go into any of the other questions that have been argued before us”. - DIT V/s SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. - [2020] 315 CTR 622 (SC)