Dismissing the appeal of the department, Hon’ble High Court held that the liaison office did not meet the criteria established in sub-paras 1 and 2 of article 5, so as to constitute a “fixed place” of business or meet the tests of virtual projection, a takeover of the premises as well as the precepts of control and disposal in order to be a fixed place permanent establishment. The activities undertaken by the liaison office even otherwise were clearly auxiliary in character and would thus clearly fall within article 5(3)(e) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The liaison office also did not meet the requirements of a dependent agent permanent establishment as per clauses (a), (b) and (c) of para 4 of article 5. Furthermore, the software utilised for the purpose of connecting the Indian agents to the mainframe, being intangible property, would invariably be excluded from the threshold of permanent establishment. Hence, liaison office of the assessee did not constitute a permanent establishment in India, there was no dependent agent permanent establishment and that the software did not result in the creation of a permanent establishment. The assessee is not exigible to tax in India.   (AY. 2001-02 to 2004-05  2006-07 to 2008-09, 2011-12,2013-14 2015-16)