2017 (11) TMI 311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. In both the assessment years a substantive common issue relates to assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short "the Act"). We may first take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007-08, in ITA No. 1424/Mum/2011, which is directed against an order passed by CIT(A)- 10 Mumbai dated 29/10/2010, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act dated 05/11/2009. 3. In brief, the relevant facts are that the assessee is a tax resident of United States of America. The taxable unit before us is a branch of The American Hotel & Lodging Educ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessing Officer noted that the CBDT vide its order dated 12/10/2004 had rejected assessee's application seeking approval for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The CIT(A) has also affirmed the stand of the Assessing Officer, against which assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the Ld. Representative for the assessee explained that for the block of assessment years 1999-2000 to 2006-07, the CBDT had granted approval to the assessee in terms of section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. Secondly, it was pointed out that so far as the captioned assessments 2007-08 and 2008-09 are concerned, assessee had filed an application to the CBDT for grant of approval on 09/05/2005 and 27/03/2008 respectively, which are stil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....side the issue again to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo assessment. It has been contended that the appeals be kept pending till the CBDT dispose off assessee's applications as per directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 09/05/2008(supra). 5. Considering the aforesaid background and in view of the fact that the facts and circumstances in the instant year stand on similar footing to those of the earlier years, it was put across to the parties as to why not the matter be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer as no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appeals pending in the ITAT. The Ld. Representative for the assessee had no objection to the same but pointed out that in spite of regular follow up with CBDT for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtunity of being heard. Thus, for assessment year 2007-08, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In so far as assessment year 2008-09 is concerned, assessee as well as Revenue are in appeal before us by way of cross-appeals against the order of the CIT(A)-10, Mumbai dated 23/03/2011,which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act dated 23/12/2010. 8. In so far as the appeal of the assessee is concerned, the facts and circumstances and the disputes are identical to those considered by us in assessee's appeal for assessment year 2007-08 in the earlier paras and, therefore, our decision in ITA No.1424/Mum/2011 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the appeal for asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowed the expenditure. On this aspect, the CIT(A) has differed with the Assessing Officer and noted that the books belong to the Head Office, who had supplied it to the branch for distribution among the students in India. The CIT(A) further concluded that the books sent by the Head Office to the branch does not 'make available' or supply or transfer of any technical services to the branch and, therefore, the same could not be considered as a fee for technical services within the meaning of Article 12(4) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA. The findings of the CIT(A) are as under:- " 6.3. I find that the HO has supplied the books to the appellant branch for distribution among students in India. The books belongs HO....