TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hort, Indo-USA DTAA ] was available to the respondent/assessee. The rectification had been ordered by the CPC with respect to two other group companies, i.e., Heidrick and Struggles Pvt. Ltd. Singapore, Heidrick and Struggles Pvt. Ltd. UK, in similar circumstance, via order dated 27.02.2020 and 30.01.2020, respectively. CBDT s Circular No. 14/1955 dated 11.04.1955 was applicable in the instant case, which, inter alia, casts a duty on the officers of the appellant/revenue to draw the attention of the assessee towards any relief that may be available to them, which the assessee may have inadvertently omitted to claim. Having regard to the aforesaid, we are of the view that the Tribunal has taken a just view in consonance with the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, the short issue which arises for our consideration is: Whether the Tribunal could have overturned the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, CIT(A) ] and the Assessing Officer (AO), that the rectification which the petitioner sought concerning the subject income being inadvertently shown under the wrong head, could not be dealt with, under Section 154 the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, Act ]. 8. The brief facts which arise for our consideration concern imposition of tax on the income received by the respondent/assessee, for services rendered to an Indian company, namely, Heidrick and Struggles India Pvt. Ltd. [in short, HSIPL ]. 9. The respondent/assessee had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment Year 2018-19 a similar adjustment i.e. taxing a service receipt 40% was levied by CPC, Bangalore in the case of assessee's group company i.e. Heidrick and Struggles Pvt. Ltd. Singapore, Heidrick and Struggles Pvt. Ltd. UK, the said assessee has preferred an application for rectification wherein the rectification applications have been allowed by the CPC on 27/02/2020 and 30/01/2020 which are found place in the paper book Page No. 300 -307 and 361 to 368. Further, it is not in dispute that as per India US Tax Treaty the impugned income is not chargeable to tax as per the provisions of Article 12 of India USA Tax Treaty. 10. As per the Central Board of Direct Taxes, CBDT Circular No. 14 reads as follows:- Officers of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee wrongly included the income in its return for a particular year, it cannot confer jurisdiction on the department to tax that income in that year even though legally such income did not pertain to that year. 12. In our opinion, the addition has been made only due to wrong reporting of income by the assessee which cannot be sustained. Therefore, in our opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) has committed an error in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. Accordingly, we allow the Assessee's Grounds of Appeal No. 1 and 2. [Emphasis is ours] 14. What emerges from a reading of the impugned order is the following: (i) It is not the case of the appellant/revenue that the subject income, i.e., the income received by the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EES FOR INCLUDED SERVICES 1. Royalties and fees for included services arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other State. 2. (x) 3. (x) 4. For purposes of this Article, fees for included services means payments of any kind to any person in consideration for the rendering of any technical or consultancy services (including through the provision of services of technical or other personnel) if such services : (a) are ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of the right, property or information for which a payment described in paragraph 3 is received ; or (b) make available t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
