|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 2067 Records
-
2017 (11) TMI 1889
Cancellation of registration certificate - cancellation of registration certificate of the appellant on the basis of the allegations and grounds neither made out nor established in the original order cancelling the registration certificate - HELD THAT:- The appeal is admitted on the substantial questions of law.
Issue Notice for final disposal returnable on 18th January, 2018.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1888
Benefit of Industrial Policy issued by the Government of Bihar - whether the relief, which has been mentioned in the policy, will come to an end with the life of the policy or the person will be entitled for the benefit of five years irrespective of the termination of the life of the policy?
HELD THAT:- In the present case, the issue has been raised of aims and object of Policy, 2011 reflects clearly that the policy was/is meant for attracting the domestic and foreign investors as well as local investors to establish the industry. From time to time, the industrial policy has been framed and brought into force with certain changes to make it more attractive. Industrial Policy has basic approach and purpose of inviting investors to set up the industry so that the financial conditions of the people of the State will improve and also generate opportunity of employment, the industrial policy should be read in such a manner that it would subserve its purpose, advance justice and suppress mischief. It requires a purposive construction while interpreting the policy, it has to be read strictly with respect to applicability of the policy, once the policy is found applicable the industrial establishment is covered under that policy then benefit arising from that policy has to be given its full effect - The statute or the policy or any document should not be read in such a manner which should not lead to absurdity. It should not be interpreted to defeat the purpose, aims and object for bringing the legislation or the policy. The interpretation which led to its destructiveness must be avoided. If any policy comes forward with promise in the shape of grant of certain benefit and, on the basis of commitment, any party or industrial (sic--industry?) taking to be a solemn declaration, acts on the basis of promise, the State cannot be allowed to resile and refuse to give benefit which has been extended by framing the statute or the policy or by declaration.
Thus, the interpretation of the policy should be normal and plain so that real purpose should be derived - On giving a plain reading it is completely clear the facility of exemption from monthly minimum charges has been stipulated for five years and there is no dispute that these industries (petitioners) were granted the benefit of incentive provided under the industrial policy. There is no dispute that the petitioners are not covered by the industrial policy of 2011 of the State of Bihar but, the question has to be seen in what manner the incentive, which has been given in different way, will be interpreted.
This Court issue a mandamus to grant benefit of concession of exemption for Monthly Minimum Charge/Minimum Base Energy Charge/Demand/Billing Demand in terms of Clause (vi) of the Clause 2 of the Bihar Industrial Incentive. Policy, 2011 - Application allowed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1887
Power to recall an order - validity of initiation of CIRP - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the Appellant is an Investor therefore, the Appellant cannot claim to be an ‘aggrieved person’ for preferring appeal against the order dated 2nd May, 2017 passed by Adjudicating Authority whereby the application under Section 9 of the ‘I&B Code’ was admitted. In fact, the Appellant being an investor is entitled to file its claim before the ‘Insolvency Resolution Professional - Further, as the order dated 2nd May, 2017 is not under challenge in this appeal this Appellate Tribunal cannot express any opinion with regard to the order of admission dated 2nd May, 2017. If the said order dated 2nd May, 2017 is allowed to be challenged, the appeal will be barred by limitation under sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the ‘I&B Code’.
In absence of any power of review or recall vested with the Adjudicating Authority, the Adjudicating Authority rightly refused to recall the order of admission dated 2nd May, 2017 - Appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1886
Validity of issuance of SCN - short paid on the ground of undervaluation - provisional assessment was pending for the relevant period - Section 11A of Central Excise Act read with Rule 9B of C.E.R., 1944 - whether the SCN issued, pending the finalization of provisional assessment is valid?
HELD THAT:- The show cause notice issued prior to finalization of provisional assessment, when admittedly the assessees were under provisional assessment scheme, is ab initio void. Accordingly, the SCN is not maintainable.
Impugned order set aside - the concerned Adjudicating/Competent Authority are directed to finalize provisional assessment of M/s Venugopal Engineering Ltd., now known as M/s Electroparts India Private Ltd. and M/s Domebell Electronics India Private Ltd., with effect from 01/03/1994 - appeal allowed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1885
Goods procured under Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 which was used in the export goods - demand on the ground that the appellant have contravened the condition given in the permission as per Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 - HELD THAT:- The appellant have followed all the conditions of Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 issued under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - there is no condition provided in the Rule or Notification or Concessional Duty Rules, 2001 for drawal of sample either of raw material or finished goods. Despite this, the Assistant Commissioner while giving the permission stipulated the said condition, which in extraneous condition which the Assistant Commissioner should not have imposed upon the appellant.
However, even if such condition was provided merely for non-compliance of such condition, benefit of Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 cannot be denied for the reason that the use of goods in the production and export of such final product is not under dispute. The object of allowing the duty free procurement of goods under Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 is that the finished goods which is manufactured out of such duty free goods, should be exported. If this condition is not under dispute the benefit otherwise cannot be denied.
Merely because the condition of drawal of sample was not complied with, the benefit of N/N. 43/2001 was wrongly denied - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1884
Provisional Release of seized goods - export of the same through Petrapole Land Customs Station - confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT:- The appellant claimed the seized goods but thereafter withdrew his claim for the ownership of the goods. The documents submitted by the appellants are found to be illicit in nature. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the export documents are not matching with the seized records. There is a dispute on the claim of the ownership of the goods and therefore, seizure and confiscation of goods are justified - however, the quantum of the redemption fine and penalty are excessive, and is reduced.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1883
Oppression and Mismanagement - Validity of EoGM - removal of Respondent No.8 from the office of the Director - forfeiture of shares.
Whether the EoGM purportedly held on 27.07.2015 is in accordance with the law and legally tenable? - HELD THAT:- The Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 seem to have made efforts to usurp the office of the Directors and to gain the control over the Board of Directors of the 1st Respondent Company. Therefore, the removal of the 1st Petitioner and R12 to R22 from the office of the Directors of the 1st Respondent Company in the EoGM purportedly held on 27.07.2015 amounts to acts of oppression by the Respondent Nos. 2 to 11. Moreover, it is on record that the appointment of Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 as Directors of 1st Respondent Company was made by a single resolution which is in violation of the provisions of Section 162 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the election dated 27.07.2015 per se is void ab initio.
Whether the forfeiture of 5415 equity shares of ₹ 100 each fully paid up held by the Petitioners and another shareholder in the 1st Respondent company, on 27.07.2015 is in accordance with the law and legally tenable? - HELD THAT:- Assuming that the Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 were Directors at the time of forfeiture of the said shares on 27.07.2015, and were authorised to cancel the shares. But legally, the Directors of the Company cannot utilise their fiduciary powers over the shares purely for the purpose of cancellation of the shares of the minority shareholders to improve their voting power. The court cannot allow to exercise such powers which might have been delegated by the company to the Board of Directors. Therefore, there was no authority with Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 to forfeit the shares of the Petitioners and another shareholder. The whole action is patently illegal, perverse and is hereby declared as null and void.
Relief - HELD THAT:- The EoGM purportedly held on 27.07.2015 was illegal, and is declared as null and void - The Petitioners and another shareholder continue to be the members of the 1st Respondent Company. We also hold that the election of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 as Directors of the 1st Respondent company in EoGM purportedly held on 27.07.2015 is illegal and is declared as null and void. Although the prayer has not been made by the Petitioners for rectification of the Register of Members under the provisions of Sections 111 and 11 IA of the Companies Act, 1956, yet the Tribunal is all empowered to mould and add the relief in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the 1st Respondent Company is directed to enter the names of the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and another shareholder in the Register of Members as shareholders, if their names happened to be removed/ omitted from the Register of Members of the 1st Respondent Company.
Petition disposed off.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1882
Rectification of Mistake application - Ms. Neha Garg, the Ld. Counsel submits that the entire order is against the assessee but somehow in concluding para 7 it is mentioned that the “appeal is allowed” - HELD THAT:- There are no merits in the present appeal - appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1881
TP Adjustment - management fee for payment towards cost support services - direction of the DRP suggesting nil adjustment on account of payment of management fee to its AE - TPO has suggested ALP adjustment treating service charges fees at nil on the ground that the assessee-company failed to prove receipt of actual services as well as justification for payment of such fees - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the assessee-company had not filed any evidence before lower authorities or before this Tribunal to substantiate receipt of services from AE. Therefore,, the ratio of the decision in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 is squarely applicable wherein this Tribunal had refused to remand the matter to the file of the AO for fresh consideration
We are unable to remand the present assessment order to the file of the AO for de novo examination as no case was made out by the assessee-firm that it was prevented by sufficient reasonable cause from filing necessary evidence in support of receipt of actual services from the AE. Simply because in earlier years the issue was remanded back to lower authorities, remand cannot be ordered in the present year without valid reason in the light of the decisions cited supra. Needless to mention that each year is an independent and separate assessment year and the principle of res-judicata is not applicable.Therefore, we do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the assessee for remand of the matter to the file of the TPO for de novo examination.
Interest income as part of eligible profits of the undertaking for purposes of computation of deduction u/s 10A - HELD THAT:- The direction of the DRP is in consonance with the decision in the case of CIT vs. Motorola India Electronics (P) Ltd [2014 (1) TMI 1235 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] Therefore, we do not find any reason to differ with the direction of the DRP. Ground of appeal in this regard is dismissed.
Reduce expenditure incurred in foreign currency on travel and telecommunication to be reduced from both export turnover as well as total turnover - HELD THAT:- This direction is line with the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Elxsi [2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] . We do not find any merit in the ground of appeal filed by the revenue and are accordingly dismissed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1880
Disallowance u/s 14A - assessee has no exempt income during the period relevant to the assessment year under consideration - HELD THAT:- The assessee has not made any investment during the year under consideration. There is no dispute that all investment has been made in the subsidiaries companies as strategic investment so as to get controlling interest in such subsidiaries.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvestment Ltd. Vs. CIT [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that, if there is no dividend income, then there cannot be any correspondence allowance. We have noted that the assessee has voluntary disallowed ₹ 13.10 Lakhs as administrative expenses for investment in its associate companies/subsidiaries. The assessee has placed on record fund flow statement (Page 33 of PB), which clearly show that the assessee has sufficient own interest free fund of ₹ 1,26,289.65/- Lakhs as on 31.03.2012. Thus, in our considered view there was no justification for making disallowance as per the provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1879
Rebate claim - time limitation - rejection on the ground that all the rebate claims had been filed after more than one year of the export of the goods and accordingly these were time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act - provisional assessment of the duty in respect of the exported goods - HELD THAT:- There is no provisional assessment of duty in this case as it was neither requested by the applicant nor it was ordered by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) has further observed that the provisional assessment can be ordered under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules by the Assistant Commissioner of the Division on the request of an assessee only in two situations when the assessee is unable to determine the value of excisable goods or the assessee is unable to determine rate of duty. But in the instant case there was no such situation and the applicant had cleared the goods for export in normal course under self-assessment procedure without resorting to any procedure of provisional assessment and thus provisional assessment was not warranted in this case even otherwise. In the revision application also these facts have not been controverted by the applicant and no evidence has been produced to establish that there was any provisional assessment of duty in this case.
The Government has also no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that the provisional assessment of exported goods is not involved in this case and the adjudication by the Additional Commissioner ordering redemption of confiscated goods on payment of fine of ₹ 15,000/- and penalty of ₹ 15,000/- cannot be termed as finalization of provision assessment in this case. The said order of the Additional Commissioner is manifestly on account of other violations by the applicant and not on account of valuation of goods etc., attracting Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 under which only a provisional assessment order can be issued. Thus sub-clause (eb) of clause (B) of the Explanation in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act which provides that in case where duty of Excise is paid provisionally under this Act or the Rules made thereunder, the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof is relevant date is not found applicable in this at all as no such adjustment of duty has been made in the Order of the Additional Commissioner.
The rebate claims filed by the applicant on 1-6-2012 are certainly time-barred as these were filed after lapse of more than one year from the export of goods on 25-2-2011 - Government finds no deficiency in the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order - Revision dismissed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1878
Penalty u/s.271A - non-maintenance of books of account as required u/s.44AA - no notice u/s.139(9) issued - HELD THAT:- We find in the instant case, the AO did not issue notice u/s.139(9) of the Act where books of accounts are not maintained and directing the assessee to remove the defect of not enclosing the financial statements i.e. gross receipts, expenses and net profit etc. and accepted the statement of total income and completed the assessment.
If an assessee maintains such documents which enables to prepare an income or expenditure account/profit and loss account, then such document shall comply the requisite provisions u/s.44AA of the Act, which enables the Assessing Officer to compute the income of the assessee under the provisions of the Income-tax Act and should be treated as sufficient compliance for completion of assessment. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not issue notice under section 139(9) of the Act directing the assessee to remove the defect of not having enclosed profit and loss account. The assessee had enclosed the statement of income where gross receipts, expenses are disclosed and profit was computed. The very fact that the Assessing Officer did not issue any notice of defect under section 139(9) shows that the AO was satisfied with documents accompanied with the return of income and are sufficient to enable him to compute the income of the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the substantive view that the penalty imposed by the AO cannot be sustained and we set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the penalty levied u/s.271A of the Act and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1877
Exemption u/s 11 - registration u/s 12A denied - Assessee submitted that the assessee had filed an application in form No. 10A seeking Registration where admittedly assessee was an ongoing entity and has been in operation since 13.03.2003 - HELD THAT:- The assessee society is stated to be in a village area and has been running for the last few years. We note from the fee structure of the classes that from class-X the assessee society has also added another class XI to its school and as per the list made available to the tax authorities, the assessee society has adequate staff by way of qualified teachers and despite the fact that complete details which we proceed to enumerate from para 5, have been made available, nothing adverse or contrary except the relevant portions extracted in the earlier part of this order have been referred to by the CIT(Exemptions).
The suspicions raised where the criticism is posed on the grounds that the assessee is “adding to the fleet of vehicles” when considered in the factual matrix that the fleet of vehicles are actually school buses to carry the children to and fro in the village where public transport for the said exercise is not easily available demonstrated that its claim has been rejected purely on biases and prejudices. The fact that it results in creating an asset is neither here nor there. The re-deployment of funds is found as per record purely for the purpose of education. The mere fact that the assessee is paying lesser salary to trained teachers does not necessarily demonstrate that the quality of the education necessarily suffers as it would depend upon the ratio of available teachers looking for jobs and the institutions looking for such people at the relevant point of time i.e. the availability of qualified teachers looking for jobs. Similarly the suspicions that the assessee was not imparting quality education, it is seen is also not borne out from the record.
The decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Yash Society [2015 (3) TMI 459 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] operates as argued by the ld. AR entirely on different set of facts and circumstances and in the facts of the present case, has no role whatsoever. On consideration of the facts, circumstances and position of law as considered in detail herein above, we find no good reason why the benefit of registration u/s 12A has been denied to the assessee. On a consideration of the facts, circumstances and position of law, we direct that the registration u/s 12A be granted to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1876
Reversal of input tax credit - levy of penalty - business of buying and selling export/import licences such as REP licence and DEPB licence etc. - petitioner's case is that these licences fall under Entry 70 of Part B of First Schedule to the TNVAT Act and taxable at the rate of 5% - it was stated that the petitioner cannot claim input tax credit unless he satisfies that the tax paid or payable was in respect of goods specified in the First Schedule - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered view that the assessing officer should re-consider the matter afresh taking note of the factual issues, as to whether the assessment for the years 2007-08 to 2010-11 is barred by limitation, the advance ruling dated 25.07.2012 in ACAAR 14/2012-13, the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 28.06.2007 - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1875
Penalty u/s 158 BFA(2) - addition of undisclosed income - HELD THAT:- We agree with the opinion of the Tribunal that the addition of undisclosed income was due to determination of income on estimate basis rather than on account of deliberate suppression of income by the respondent. In our opinion, the Tribunal's finding in this regard is proper and sound. The substantial questions of law are, accordingly, answered against the Revenue.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1874
TP adjustment for recovery of management expenses - expenses are incurred by the assessee for his own investment purpose and not for or on behalf of the AE- TPO/AO making adjustment for mark up to be recovered from AE being the mark @13.71% - HELD THAT:- We find it is clear from the records that these transactions are independently undertaken with the professional bodies which are not connected in any fashion with the assessee. There is no evidence on record to suggest that M/s. J. Sagar Associates and M/s. S.S. Iyer and Company are related AEs of the assessee. In our view, the issue raised in Ground 4(b) is dependent on the Ground No.4(a) and the same is required to be remanded for want of facts, as argued by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us. Therefore, we direct the AO/TPO to consider the above and decide the issue afresh after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No.4(a) and (b) are allowed for statistical purposes.
Benchmarking rate of interest @13.25% as against assessee charging interest @8% for the loan given to Autoline Industries Limited, USA and accordingly making a TP adjustment - HELD THAT:- In our view the benchmarking of the international transaction applying the flat rate of 13.25% of the bank rate is not proper. There is requirement for maintaining the “principle of consistency” from the Department side. Therefore, we remand this issue also to the file of the AO to verify the set principles of consistency and decide the issue afresh after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No.4(c) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
TP adjustment for Foreign Exchange Loss - HELD THAT:- we perused the ledger extract connection to the foreign rate fluctuations and find the losses are mainly on account of balances linked to the accounts in Kotak Mahendra Bank C/A – ₹ 44,76,000/- and Forex Benefit of ECB loan ₹ 10,38,287/-. Prima-facie, we find these amounts does not seem to be the ones relating to the international transaction involving the Associated Enterprises of the assessee. Therefore, we find it relevant to remit this issue also to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. Assessee is directed to file relevant documents in support of the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No.4(d) is allowed for statistical purposes.
TP adjustment for recovery of Guarantee Fees when the transaction of money given to AE was on investment account - HELD THAT:- The impugned transactions of this year being outside the scope of international transaction, could not be said to be effected by the retrospective effect of the amendment
The amendment to the Explanation to section 92B of the Act, though stated to be clarificatory has to be necessarily treated as effective from at best the A.Y. 2013-14 onwards and not to the A.Y. 2009-10 under consideration. In the current year, such guarantees does not constitute “international transactions”. Same is the ratio as held by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. [2014 (3) TMI 496 - ITAT DELHI] . While deciding the above, both the Benches have kept their reliance on the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of New Skies Satellite BV . [2016 (2) TMI 415 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to relief on this account. Accordingly, this part of ground is allowed.
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of expenses for earning exempt income - HELD THAT:- As demonstrated before us that the assessee’s investments appeared in the balance sheet under the heading ‘investments’ made by the assessee by the end of the order is much less than the assessee’s own funds - we find the issue needs to be remanded to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. AO is directed to examine the figures and apply the ratios laid down by the binding judgments of the jurisdictional High Court. We remit Ground No.4(f) to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1873
TDS u/s 194C - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - assessee JV had assigned the work allotted to its member companies - as per AO arrangement between the assessee and the entities was nothing but a contract - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case [2017 (8) TMI 1595 - ITAT PUNE] in absence of any contract or sub-contract work by joint venture to its member companies, provisions of section 194C were not applicable for the purpose of TDS - The two corporate entities forming joint venture were already being assessed since A.Y. 2000-01 onwards on their respective shares and TDS apportionment certificates were also issued by the AO every year for these eight years including the current assessment year to enable them to claim the same - there was no Profit and Loss Account in the assessee’s case and there was no claim of any expenditure - there was no question of any disallowance under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) - disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) made by the AO cannot be sustained - the finding of the CIT(A) cannot be interfered who has rightly held that there is no question of disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act – Decided against revenue.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1872
Exemption u/s 11 - restoration of registration granted to the respondent assessee u/s 12A - HELD THAT:- By order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Cotton Textile Exports [2017 (2) TMI 1444 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] . Admittedly, by the said order, the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in [2014 (5) TMI 733 - ITAT MUMBAI] and, therefore, the order of restoration of registration granted to the respondent assessee under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been confirmed. No substantial question of law arises.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1871
TP Adjustment - addition on account of Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) Expenditure - HELD THAT:- As decided in MSD PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD. VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. [2017 (7) TMI 1346 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] referring to Sony Ericson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2015 (3) TMI 580 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that in matters of transfer pricing the first exercise that is to be undertaken is to determine if in fact there existed an international transaction between the Assessee at its Associated Enterprise. Only if the said question is answered in the affirmative, the further question of determining its arm’s length price would arise. Counsel on both sides state that all the necessary documents and information for determining the above question already form part of the record of the case in the ITAT.
Restore the aforementioned appeal to the file of the ITAT for a fresh de novo adjudication on merits without reference to the order of the ITAT that has been set aside by this judgment.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1870
Royalty receipt - Payments received from key application services (‘KAS’) for network access etc or providing network access to use copyright software - ‘DTAA’ of India-Netherlands - HELD THAT:- Tribunal in assessee’s own case has taken the view that the payments received by the assessee from WIPRO, IBM and Logica in pursuance to the MSA cannot be treated as royalty under Article 12(4) of the Indian-Netherlands DTAA.
Exactly on identical facts, this was confronted to the learned CIT DR, he fairly agreed that the issue is covered by the Tribunal’s decision. After hearing both the sides and gone through the facts of the case, we find that exactly on identical facts the issue is covered by Tribunal’s decision for AY 2006-07 [2017 (4) TMI 763 - ITAT MUMBAI]
Taxability of payment received by assessee from IT support services which constitutes Fees for Technical Services (‘FTS’) - royalty under the India-Netherlands Treaty DTAA - HELD THAT:- Concept of ‘make available’ of technical services that such receipts would not amount to fee for technical services so as to the “concept of make available clause’ contained in Article 13(4)(c) of the treaty has not been satisfied. See GUY CARPENTER & CO. LTD. [2012 (5) TMI 31 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Accordingly, we delete the addition and allow this issue of assessee’s appeal.
............
|
9911796707
