Allowing the petition the Court held that, If this plea of the assessee was not even looked at or examined by the Panel, it would amount to a jurisdictional error. To relegate the assessee to the appellate remedies in order to obtain an order of remand to the Panel, would be unjustified. Significantly, no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue, as the assessee had only sought correction of a jurisdictional error. That the Dispute Resolution Panel had failed to exercise its jurisdiction and had rendered the entire process of dispute resolution under the scheme of the Act farcical. A perusal of the objections recorded by the Panel under section 144C(5) showed that the main or the basic contention raised by the assessee with respect to the non-taxability of its income under DTAA had not been considered or discussed and adjudicated upon. The Panel had blindly followed the Tribunal’s decisions and had held that the web hosting services were interlinked with the domain registration and were ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of the right for which payment was received by the assessee as royalty. In the decisions of the Tribunal which had formed the basis of the directions the assessee had taken a stand that it was not a tax resident of the U. S. A., and that it had not claimed any benefit under the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the U.S. A. The Panel had not taken note of this aspect and had relied upon the decision to uphold the action of the Assessing Officer to treat the receipts on account of domain name registration charges received by the assessee as royalty under section 9(1)(vi). The Dispute Resolution Panel should have noticed whether or not the distinction from the decision of the Tribunal would have a bearing on the ultimate decision, and dealt with it. It could not have completely ignored it or irrationally applied it. It should have given its reasons for coming to that conclusion and given its findings and directions regarding the taxability of the receipts in the hands of the assessee. The Panel had merely followed the reasoning given therein without giving any indication how it was applicable to the assessee while dealing with the assessee’s foremost objection regarding the provisions of the DTAA. The matter was remitted back to the Dispute Resolution Panel for considering the objections raised by the assessee in detail, and for passing a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law giving reasons and findings. Matter remanded. (AY. 2016-17)