TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding 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. The impugned payments are not in nature of FTS and hence not taxable in India. Interest u/s 234B of the Act is not leviable in this case as payments made to the appellant were subject to withholding tax u/s 195 of the Act. The ground of appeal is allowed. - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 3415/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 21-6-2018 - Shri H.S. Sidh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to reimbursement of expenses is as under : During the subject year, CITPL has received the reimbursement of actual expenditure incurred by it on behalf of its group company, Cargill India Private Limited (CIPL). AIPL has reimbursed expenses amounting to ₹ 24,155,248 during the subject year on which tax amounting to ₹ 71,625 has been deducted at source by CIPL. Accordingly, tax amounting to ₹ 71,625/- deducted at source by CIPL has been claimed as defined by CIPTL. In this regard the assessee was issued show cause notice, in response to which the assessee submitted that the said reimbursement did not constitute income either under the Act or under the Tax Treaty. The assessee also relied on various judgments. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shore (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2014) 51 taxmann.com 386 (SC).He, therefore, urged for restoration of Assessing Officer s order. 4. After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the entire material on record, we observe that the ld. CIT(A) has discussed this issue in detail in his order, wherein we do not find any infirmity. The findings reached by the ld. CIT(A) on both the issues read as under : 7.1. I have duly considered submissions of the appellant. The relevant facts are that Mr. Jitesh Avlani, one of expatriate of the appellant was seconded to C1PL who worked as chairman of CIPL for the period from 01.02.2007 to 14.08.2008 and he was on payroll of CIPL. The salary costs paid by CIPL to Mr. Jitesh have been offered to tax in India. Part of sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is allowed. 9.1. The appellant has submitted that interest u/s 234B of the Act is not leviable because all the payments made to the appellant are subject to withholding tax u/s 195. For this proposition, the appellant has relied upon various case laws as under: DIT vs Jacabs Civil Incorporated, Mitsubishi Corpn. ors. 330 ITR 578 (Delhi) CJT vs Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd. 264 ITR 320 (Uttar) DIT vs NGC Network Asia LLC 222 CTR 86 (Bom) 9.2. The contention of the appellant has been duly considered. In view of jurisdictional High Court's decision and other authorities on the issue, I hold that interest u/s 234B of the Act is not leviable in this case as payments made to the appellant were s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
