9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted, ground no. 1 is general and ground nos. 2 to 6, on instructions of the assessee, are not to be pressed. Accordingly, ground nos. 1 to 6 are dismissed as not pressed. 3. In ground no.7, assessee has challenged the addition of an amount of Rs.5,68,73,38,333 as fee for Technical Services (FTS)/Fee for Included Services (FIS) as per the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12 of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 4. Briefly, the facts are, assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in United States of America (USA) and its headquarter is at Seattle, Washington. As stated by the assessing officer, the assessee is prim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the final assessment order. 6. Before us, it is a common point between the parties that the issue has been consistently decided in favour of the assessee in assessee's own case by the Tribunal in assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 and 2017-18. 7. On perusal of material placed before us, we find, this is a recurring issue between the assessee and the revenue starting from assessment year 2010-11. While deciding the issue in assessment year 2010-11, the Tribunal, in ITA No.1740/Del/2015 dated 30.09.2020 has held that the amount received by the assessee from freight/logistic support services cannot be treated as FTS/FIS either under the Act or under treaty provisions. Accordingly, the addition was deleted. Identical view was expressed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in transfer of technical know-how and skill, hence, the assessee has made available skill, technical know-how, for which, it has received payment. Accordingly, he held that the amount received by the assessee is in the nature of FTS/FIS both under the Act as well as DTAA. While doing so, the assessing officer relied upon the assessment order passed for earlier assessment years. Following their decision in assessment year 2017-18, learned DRP upheld the addition. 9. Before us, learned counsels appearing for the respective parties have agreed that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by a number of decisions of the Tribunal in preceding assessment years. 10. Having considered rival submissions, we find that this is a recurring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee in assessment years 2011-12 to 2015-16 and 2017-18. 13. Having considered rival submissions, it is observed that while deciding identical issue in assessee's own case in assessment years 2012-13 to 2015-16, the Tribunal in ITA No.1904/Del/2017 and Ors. Dated 05.01.2022 has held that lease line charges are not in the nature of royalty. The same view was reiterated by the Tribunal while deciding the issue in assessment year 2017-18. It is further relevant to observe, while considering the allowability of payment made towards lease line charges at the hands of assessee's payer, the assessing officer had held that the payment made is in the nature of royalty, hence, the assessee was required to deduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
