Held that the tax authorities below had fallen in error to hold the existence of a permanent establishment on the basis of the mere assumption that the assessee-company had a subsidiary in India without substantiating how the Indian subsidiary was privy to the purchases by other entities. Without examining the buyers no inference could be drawn about the role of Indian subsidiary. The tax authorities had not appreciated the evidence in the form of bill of lading showing delivery outside India and payments made outside India nor taken note of the fact that the export to Indian counterparts was on principal-to-principal basis. The assessee-company was not alleged to have any fixed place of business in the form of branch office or project office or liaison office or godown or warehouse or any other business site in India. No employee of the assessee-company was found working in India. Thus, to hold a permanent establishment on the basis of existence of a subsidiary of the assessee in India could not be sustained. There was no permanent establishment of the assessee in India and the consequential attribution of the profit had no basis.(AY.2013-14)