Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (12) TMI 572

ssessing Officer - Held that:- In our considered opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the two day delay in furnishing the objections to the DRP’s objections deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, we condone the delay in submission of the objection of the DRP. The ld. DRP is directed to pass the direction on the objections. - Appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. - I.T.A. Nos. 747/Mum/2015 And 3609/Mum/2016 - Dated:- 4-12-2017 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM For The Appellant : Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Shri Ravi Sawana For The Respondent : Shri Samuel Darse ORDER Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These are appeals by the assessee s directed against the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 09.12.2014 for the assessment year 2011-12. ITA No. 3609/Mum/2016 2. The assessee has appealed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 28.02.2016. The assessee has raised multiple grounds but the fact of the case are that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has held that the assessee should have filed the appeal before the ITAT and not before him .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

t find any infirmity in the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and, accordingly, we confirm the same. Hence, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed. ITA No. 747/Mum/2015 6. The grounds of appeal read as under: Ground No. 1 - Action of the Dispute Resolution Panel On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred in holding that the objections were filed by the Appellant before it beyond the time limit prescribed in section 1440(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), and in treating the same (objections filed) as non-est. The Appellant prays that requisite directions be given so as to restate the objections filed by the Appellant/treat the objections filed as valid. Ground No. 2 - Learned AO's observation on date of service of order On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International] Taxation) -3(3)(2) ('learned DCIT'/'learned AO') has erred in observing that the Appellant has provided wrong information in Form No. 35A ignoring the fact that the draft order issued under section 1440(1) of the Act was in e .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

with the Memorandum of Understanding to the DTAA and hence, payments received for such services fall outside the scope of Article i2(4)(b) of the DTAA. 6.2 Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned DCIT erred in disregarding the Appellant's submissions that in terms of Article I2(s)(c) of the DTAA, fees received for providing teaching/ educational services are not taxable as FIS. The Appellant prays that the learned DCIT be directed to hold that the Appellant is not liable to tax in India on payments attributable to the teaching services by virtue of Article i2(s)(c) of the DTAA. Ground No. 7 - Business profits not taxable in absence of a Permanent Establishment On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned DCIT erred in not appreciating that, if at all, the payments received by the Appellant during the year are in the nature of 'Business Profits', and hence, not taxable in India under Article 7 of the DTAA in the absence of a Permanent Establishment in India (under Article 5 of the DTAA). The Appellant prays that the learned DCIT be directed to hold that the payments received by the Appell .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

7; 1,93,191 and ₹ 1,62,006 respectively. The Appellant prays that the learned DCIT be directed to delete the interest levied under the said sections. 7. In this case, the draft assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 21.2.2014. according to the Assessing Officer the date of service of the draft assessment order was 22.2.2014, however, the assessee claimed that the date of service of draft assessment order was 24.2.2014. The assessee filed objection against the draft assessment order before DRP-3 on 26.3.2014. The DRP obtained report from the Assessing Officer on 22.8.2014. In this report on 22.8.2014, the Assessing Officer stated to the DRP that draft assessment order was served on 22.2.2014 and thus objection were filed late by two days. On 12.11.2014, the DRP treated the objection as non-est, the DRP s order in this regard reads as under: As per the provisions of Section 144C(2) of the Act, the eligible assessee shall within thirty days of receipt of the draft order, file his objections to the Dispute Resolution Panel and the Assessing Officer. The concerned provisions of Act for the sake of ready reference are reproduced herein under :- On receipt of the dr .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||