Assessee, a US company had subsidiary in India (CIS). It claimed that it procured services from India and did not carry out any operations in India Lower authorities opined that assessee had a fixed place PE in India under article 5(1) of DTAA. On appeal the Tribunal held that   since employees of assessee frequently visited premises of CIS to provide supervision, direction and control over operation of CIS and such employees had a fixed place of business at their disposal, it had fixed place PE in India and thus, profit attribution had to be made in hands of assessee due to such fixed place PE. Tribunal held that  since CIS was not an agent of assessee and it did not have any authority to conclude contracts or secure orders on behalf of assessee, CIS could not be treated as a dependent agent PE of assessee in India. Assessing Officer held that this consideration was taxable as equipment royalty at rate of 10 per cent, since there was no transfer of right to use, either to assessee or its subsidiary (CIS) and no part of equipment was leased out to CIS, said payment did not constitute royalty under provisions of article 12 of India-USA DTAA. Assessing Officer held that this consideration was taxable as equipment royalty at rate of 10 per cent. Tribunal held that  since there was no transfer of right to use, either to assessee or to CIS and assessee had merely procured a service and provided same to CIS and no part of equipment was leased out to CIS, payment made by assessee was in nature of reimbursement of expenses and accordingly not taxable in hands of assessee. (AY. 2018-19 , 2019-20)