TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... izance of any of the objections raised by the assessee and passes a non-speaking order, hence it deserves to be se aside. Accordingly, we restore all these issues to the file of the DRP for re-adjudication. - ITA No. 5019/Del/2010 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2012 - SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JJ. Appellant by: Shri Ajay Vohra Roopesh Jain, Adv. Respondent by: Shri DK Gupta, CIT(DR) ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee is in appeal before us against the assessment order dated 15.09.2010 passed under sec. 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 are general in nature. In ground Nos.4 to 6, assessee has pleaded that it has a permanent establishment and its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opy of the assessment order dated 6.2.2012 passed under sec. 143(3) in assessment year 2008-09. He pointed out that in the light of this order, the ground Nos. 4 to 6 deserve to be allowed and the income of the assessee deserve to be recomputed. He further contended that learned DRP has not considered objections of the assessee and passed a non-speaking order. The learned counsel for the assessee addressed arguments qua ground No.7 to 10 also. But after looking into the order of DRP, we expressed our opinion that all these issues deserve to be set aside to the file of the learned DRP for re-adjudication of the objections raised by the assessee. Learned DR was unable to support the order of the Learned DRP because it does not disclose any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Learned DRP without looking into any of the objections has passed the following order: The assessee filed objections before the DRP vide its application No. 375 on 2.2.2010 for the assessment year 2007-08. The case was fixed for hearing for 28.7.2010. In response to notice Shri C.S. Mathur and Smt. Radhika Mathur appeared and were heard. The main objections pertained to consideration of gross receipt of Rs.40,23,04,478 as taxable income being fee for technical services, rejection for the claim for exemption of Rs.1,46,52,283 in respect of services rendered by head office and also disallowance of mobilization expenses amounting to Rs.2,87,90,000. The assessee has also objected to levy of interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C and also i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cle 7. The observations of the learned Assessing Officer read as under: Based on the facts of the case and the decisions as cited above, I am of the considered opinion that since the contractual activities in relation to the project have been carried out in India by technical experts deputed to the project site for long term tenure, also considering that project continued for more than six months i.e. from Ist May 2006 till its completion, it has to be accepted that activities undertaken by the assessee are effectively connected with the PE of the assessee in India. As such, it held that entire income except the technical planning fees received by PE shall be treated as business income and shall be taxable on net profit basis, in terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
