9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Panel-1(WZ), Mumbai, [in short referred to as DRP] u/s 144C(5) dated 22/09/2017. Although the assessee has raised as many as 3 grounds of appeal along with Form No. 36B, however, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee would not be pressing Ground No. 2 whereas Ground No.3 which is related with computation of interest u/s 234B would be consequential in nature and therefore, the same would not require any adjudication. At the same time, it has been submitted that the assessee has filed an additional ground of appeal on 14/06/2019 which is related with taxability of consulting and engineering fees as per Article 13 of India-UK DTAA. The said ground was stated to be inadvertently omitted to be raised before Ld. DRP and therefore, it was pleaded t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 1.3 Without prejudice to ground number 1.1, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned DCIT has erred in considering the entire cost allocation amount of INR 5,16,60,955/- towards income for use of brand name 'Buro Happold' without appreciating the fact that various services were provided by Appellant. Additional Ground of Appeal 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned DRP ought to have held that the consulting and engineering service fee amounting to Rs. 1,20,58,336 is not taxable as per the provisions of Article-13 of India-UK Double Tax Avoidance Agreement. 2. With respect to Ground No.1, Ld. AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered in assessee's favor b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same was accepted by the revenue. 3.3 It further transpired that the assessee was in receipt of cost recharge of Rs. 516.60 Lacs from its Associated entity in India i.e. Buro India towards various costs incurred. The same was not offered to tax since as per assessee's submissions, these services did not make available any knowledge, skill, process, know-how and experience as per the terms of India-UK DTAA. These costs were stated to be incurred for the benefit of Buro Group as a whole and allocated to various group entities based on certain predetermined cost allocation keys as per the cost allocation agreement. These costs would, inter-alia, include costs incurred by the assessee in providing various services viz. IT functions, Business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eaty and therefore, its nature was that of fees for technical services. Aggrieved, the assessee is under appeal before us. 4. Upon perusal of earlier order of Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2012-13, it is evident that two issues were under consideration in the said appeal viz. (i) Taxability of Consulting & Engineering Services; (ii) the taxability of cost recharge which were stated to be ancillary and incidental to consulting & engineering services. The co-ordinate bench, in para-20, held that the amount received by the assessee on account of consulting & engineering services were to be treated as business profit and in the absence of assessee's PE in India, it could not be brought to tax. Consequently, the cost recharge which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
