Assessee sought declaration that consideration received from its Indian subsidiary under service agreement was not taxable in India on ground that it had no permanent establishment (PE) in India and that services were rendered from China, while identical issue for earlier years was pending before appellate authorities-Whether High Court ought not to exercise writ jurisdiction to adjudicate taxability or grant declaratory relief when same issue was pending in assessee’s own case before appellate forums. Assessee, a China-resident company providing group support services to its Indian subsidiary, applied for a nil withholding tax certificate under section 197, and Assessing Officer rejected application on ground that in earlier years identical receipts had been held taxable in India and such assessments were pending challenge before appellate authorities. Court held that the  Assessg Officer, having regard to existing and estimated tax liability under rule 28AA and past assessments, was justified in rejecting application for nil withholding tax certificate. Grant of nil TDS certificate in such circumstances would be contrary to subsisting assessments in assessee’s own case. Order rejecting application for ‘nil withholding tax’ certificate called for no interference.  Court also observed that  in absence of any specific provision in law or DTAA, services rendered virtually through email, video conferencing, etc., could not be treated as services physically rendered in India. Mere virtual rendering of services to an Indian entity was insufficient to conclude that services were rendered in India.  (AY. 2026-27)