Assessee, a Mauritius based company, was engaged in telecasting sports channel called ’Ten Sports’.  It appointed its Indian subsidiary (Taj India) as its advertising sales agent to sell commercial advertisement time to prospective advertisers in India. It also appointed Taj India as its distributor to distribute subscription supported television programming service solely for exhibition to subscribers in India.  Later, by addendum in distribution agreement assessee gave Taj India authority to conclude contracts in its name.  Assessing Officer held that assessee had a dependent agent PE in India within meaning of article 5(4)(i) of DTAA on ground that Taj India had authority to conclude contracts in name of assessee hence the income is taxable in India.On appeal the CIT(A) held that the assessee did not have any PE with respect to its distribution functions.  On cross appeal the Tribunal held that  since Assessing Officer failed to establish that Taj India habitually exercised authority to conclude contracts on behalf of assessee, in such case Taj India could not be said to be dependent agent PE of assessee under article 5(4) of DTAA and distribution income of assessee was not be taxable in India. (AY. 2013-14)