Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 237 - ITAT DELHIDeemed income u/s 44BBB - Income from offshore supplies -- Income attribution - composite contracts - Offshore supply qua PE - amounts received on account of Business whether in or outside India - why the Project Office be not taxed under section 44BBB of the Act and the assessment not be completed by following the assessment orders for earlier assessments years as the facts of the case were identical to that of earlier years? - HELD THAT:- Income from offshore supplies was not liable to tax in India both u/s 44BBB as well as under the provisions of Article – 7 r.w. para 6 of DTAA between India & Japan. The aforesaid order was followed by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal while deciding the appeal for A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 [2020 (2) TMI 1053 - ITAT DELHI]. Before us, Revenue has not placed any material to demonstrate that the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier years have been set aside/stayed/overruled by higher judicial forum. Since the facts in the year under consideration are identical to that of earlier years, we for similar reasons hold no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus dismiss the ground of Revenue. Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) in India - computation of profits attributable to PE - AO noticed that assessee had received amounts for supply to Teesta & Purulia Project but the entire receipts were not offered to tax - non inclusion of the amounts to tax to which it made the submissions - HELD THAT:- The issue in the present ground is with respect to the. AO attributed the profit to PE @ 50% whereas CIT(A) attributed it to 20%. We find that identical issue arose in assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2006-07 to 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14. The relevant findings of the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2013-14 [2020 (11) TMI 1032 - ITAT DELHI]. Revenue has also not placed any material to demonstrate that the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier years has been set aside/stayed/overruled by higher judicial forum. In such circumstances, we following the order of the Co-ordinate Bench for earlier years and for similar reasons, find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the grounds of Revenue is dismissed. Attribution of 20% profits to the assessee - HELD THAT:- The issue in the present ground is with respect to attribution of profits to the assessee. AO had attributed 50% of gross profits to assessee which was reduced to 20% by CIT(A). We find identical issue arose in assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2006-07. The Co-ordinate Bench for the detailed reasons stated in the order upheld the order of CIT(A) in holding that no income was liable to be attributable in India even if Mitsui & Co. Ltd. constituted DAPE of the assessee in India. The aforesaid order was followed by ITAT while deciding the appeal for A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09[2020 (2) TMI 1053 - ITAT DELHI]. Before us, no distinguishing feature in the facts for the year under consideration and that of earlier years has been pointed out by Revenue.
|