Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (4) TMI 515

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to DRP for deciding the issue afresh on merits - The assessee is also directed to supply the copies of consortium agreement and other details necessary for arriving at the conclusion whether there is PE in India or not - Hence, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - 5299 (DELHI) OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 21-4-2011 - C.L. SETHI, K.D. RANJAN, JJ. Nageswar Rao and Pranav Bhaskara for the Appellant. Smt. Mona Mohanty for the Respondent. ORDER K.D. Ranjan, Accountant Member. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 arises out of the order of assessment order made under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act. The relevant grounds of appeal are reproduced as under : .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (5) The directions of DRP-II and consequently the impugned order erred in not considering the submissions and material facts submitted on record and wrongly proceeded on assumption that certain relevant data was not submitted by the appellant. (6) The directions of the DRP-II and consequently the impugned order fail to appreciate that the amounts received during relevant assessment year related to services rendered overseas and wrongly proceeded to conclude that the short visits to India made by few employees of the appellant result in a permanent establishment of the appellant in India on the assumption that the place such employees worked from during such visits constituted an office. Without prejudice to any of above grounds and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l amount of tax deducted at source. (13) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. Any consequential relief, to which the appellant may be entitled under the law in pursuant of the aforesaid grounds of appeal, or otherwise, may be thus granted." 2. The only issue for consideration relates to confirmation of draft order of the Assessing Officer by Dispute Resolution Penal (DRP) under section 144C of the Act. The facts stated in brief are that during the year under consideration, the assessee had shown a receipt of Rs. 7,40,91,233 from Natrip Implementation Society on account of project consultancy agreement entered i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... parts i.e., (i) Exploring the details project implantation report; (ii) Engineering; and (iii) Construction supervision. The ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that fee received in the previous year related to the activities only in respect of exploration of detailed project implementation report which work was done by the employees of the assessee who came from abroad and stayed in hotels and reports were prepared by visiting places in the country. It was submitted that the foreign employees did not stay in India for more than 15 days at a stretch and therefore, there was no PE in India. 4. The ld. DRP considered the submissions made by the assessee. It has been observed that the assessee had filed in the Paper Book only the bills of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ss income. The Assessing Officer on receipt of the order from DRP assessed the income of Rs. 7,34,28,060 as business income. 5. Before us, ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that DRP has not considered the issue in its right perspective. Ld. A.R. for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench C , New Delhi in the case of GAP International Sourcing India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2011] 44 SOT 56/[2010] 8 taxmann.com 294 (Delhi) and the decision of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Vodafone Essar Ltd. v. Dispute Resolution Panel II [2011] 196 Taxman 423 and requested that the matter should be remanded back to the authorities for fresh adjudication. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR supported the order of the Assessin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates