9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 1201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. Since common grievances are involved in both these appeals, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity, though the quantum in the impugned issues may differ. 3. For the sake of convenience, we are taking up the grounds for Assessment Year 2011-12, which read as under: "1. Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing officer (Ld. AO)/Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') has erred in holding that amount of INR 37,74,58,451 received by the Appellant from Indian Customers on account of sale of software/license charges is taxable as royalty under Article 12(3) of India-Israel Double Taxation Avoidance Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 37,74,58,451), which is in addition to the receipts appearing in Form 26AS, on the ground of reconciliation with the figures appearing in Form 26AS, without providing sufficient documents to reconcile such receipts from amounts in USD. 3. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/DRP has erred in capping the grant of tax credit amounting to INR 4,02,99,083 upto the tax liability of the Appellant i.e. INR 3,77,45,845 and not providing the refund of excess taxes deducted at source. 4. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP has erred in proposing charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inguishing decision in favour of the Revenue. 9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. We find force in the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee. The issue raised in the present appeals was also there in Assessment Year 2010-11 and the co-ordinate bench in ITA No. 7111/DEL/2019 has held as under: "5. We have heard boththe parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs CIT 432 ITR 471 (SC). 6. Per contra, Ld. DR would not dispute this proposition. 7. Accordingly, we holdthat this issue is covered in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
