“ 32 . In view of the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal that the main service rendered by the assessee to its client-hotels was advertisement, publicity and sales promotion keeping in mind their mutual interest and, in that context, the use of trademark, trade name or the stylized “S” or other enumerated services referred to in the agreement with the assessee were incidental to the said main service, it rightly concluded, in our view, that the payments received were neither in the nature of royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) read with Explanation 2 or in the nature of fee for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii) read with Explanation 2 or taxable under Article 12 of the DTAA. The payments received were thus, rightly held by the Tribunal, to be in the nature of business income. And since the assessee admittedly does not have a permanent establishment under the Article 7 of the DTAA „business income‟ received by the assessee cannot be brought to tax in India. The findings of the Tribunal on this account cannot be faulted. The Tribunal pointedly observed that there was no evidence brought on record by the Revenue to enable them to hold that the agreement was a colourable device, in particular, that the payments received were for use of trade mark, brand name and stylized mark “S”. We agree with reasoning adopted by the Tribunal. Moreover, these are findings of fact which could be gone into only if a question was proposed impugning the findings of the Tribunal as perverse. We find that no such question has been proposed in the appeal. The observations of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Ravindranathan Nair vs CIT [2001] 247 ITR 178 being relevant are extracted below (page 181):
