Held  that the observation of the Principal Commissioner that the assessee was not entitled to treaty benefits being a non-resident for tax purpose because of non-fulfilment of condition of liable to tax criteria was wrong on the facts. Merely because tax exemption was provided by the resident country that would not give an automatic right to the Revenue authorities to tax the income in the contracting State. That the observation of the Principal Commissioner that the assessee had about 21 investors who were non-tax resident of Mauritius and hence the assessee was a conduit could not be accepted. That the assessee had entered into only two transactions in the whole year in G-Sec bonds and few transactions in cash was only a partial truth. In addition to the investments in bonds and exchange traded cash equities, the assessee had a large number of exchange traded derivatives transactions. The contract notes reflected transactions of the assessee on Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd., Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange. In addition to the investments in India, the assessee had also invested in LME, CMX, SSE and DGCX. Hence, the contention of the Principal Commissioner that the income earned by the assessee from derivatives was not a business income could not be accepted. Therefore, the receipt was not taxable in India, and there was no prejudice caused to the Revenue and the order passed by the Principal Commissioner is  liable to be obliterated.(AY.2017-18)