9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vices for managing the affairs of CIPL through its employee is in the nature of FTS and taxable in India as per the provision of Act as well as under DTAA. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. cIT(A) has erred in deleting interest u/s. 234B." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return on 30.09.2009 declaring income of Rs. 27,20,98,254/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee is a company incorporated in 1974 under the laws of Singapore. The assessee was engaged in the business of International Trade in grains, oil seeds and edible oils, coal, ferrous and other agricultural products. The Assessing Officer observed from notes to the retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the submissions of the assessee and relying on some case laws, treated it as FTS and applied the tax rate on the payment of Rs. 2,41,55,248/- as per DTAA between India and Singapore. The Assessing Officer also charged interest u/s. 234B applicable on the above addition. Aggrieved, the assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering the detailed submissions of the assessee and the order of the Assessing Officer allowed the appeal of the assessee on both the issues. The Revenue is, therefore, in this appeal before the Tribunal, challenging the impugned order. 3. We have heard the ld. DR and have gone through the entire material on record. None is present on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we have no option but to decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business of providing any services. The payments in dispute are made in relation to employment of Mr. Jitesh Avlani who was on payroll of CIPL. Payment of salary costs to Mr. Jitesh was responsibility of CIPL. Part of such costs has been paid by the appellant to Jitesh which were later on reimbursed by CIPL. All the salary costs including those paid by the appellant have been offered to tax in India. The payments made by the appellant to Mr. Jitesh were infact obligations of CIPL and therefore subsequent payments made by CIPL to the appellant are reimbursement in nature. Therefore, it cannot be held that appellant has provided any technical service within meaning of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act or Article 12(4) of DTAA. 7.3. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
