Held, dismissing the appeal of the Revenue the Court held that  there were two important aspects that the Commissioner (Appeals) touched upon. First, there was no back-to-back arrangement, according to him, between the assessee, and its holding company, in order to deny the assessee the status of a beneficial owner, the Assessing Officer had to find that the assessee was either an agent or conduit for the holding company. The second proposition, as a matter of fact, flowed from the findings of fact returned by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) had found as a matter of fact that the assessee was playing the role of a service provider after procuring them from other group companies and that it had dominion over the fees received by it. Once it was held that there was no back-to-back arrangement and the assessee had dominion and control over the fees received by it and thus entitled to status of a beneficial owner, then, even according to the Revenue, the provisions of article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement would be attracted. The Tribunal, had sustained the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). No substantial question of law arose in the appeal. (AY.2015-16)