9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Article 13 of the India Netherland DTAA. Though, the quantum may differ. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of logistics and freight forwarding across the globe. The assessee has various business infrastructures such as IT network, E-commerce portal facilitating interface with customers, network pool of various service providers, such as freight insurance etc.. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings the AO noticed that, the assessee has earned its income from services provided to its Indian AE i.e., Damco India Private Limited (DIPL), as network transportation fee. The transportation fee received from DIPL, was subjected to TDS treating the remittance as FTS but in the return of income was not offered to tax treating the same as business income on the ground that there was no PE in India. Since the payment was in the nature of FTS, a show-cause notice was issued proposing to treat the transportation fee as FTS. The assessee filed a detailed reply explaining that it is overall responsible for operation and maintenance of the business at global level and since DIPL is part of such network it makes use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the assessee treating the impugned receipts as FTS. The DRP further observed that the issues at hand is similar to those which were dealt by the DRP in AY 2012-13 and 2013-14. 8. Though the DRP fairly conceded that identical additions were made in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14, 2017-18, 2019-20 and 2020- 21 and the said additions were deleted by the Tribunal and since the decisions of the Tribunal were not accepted by the revenue, the DRP confirmed the action of the AO. 9. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. The Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 7447/Mum/2017 for AY 2013-14; ITA No. 545/Mum/2022 & ITA No. 2240/Mum/2022, for AYs 2018-19 & 2019-20 and ITA No. 909 & 937/Mum/2023, AYs 2017-18 and 2020-21, has deleted the impugned addition. The latest order being that for AY 2017-18 and 2020-21 in ITA Nos. 909 & 937/Mum/2023, the relevant finding of which read as under:- "7. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. With the assistance of the ld. Representative we have perused all the three judicial pronouncements in the case of the assessee itself as referred supra. The relevant operating part of the decision of ITAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red into new agreement w.e.f. 01/01/2013 with Damco International BV (the assessee). Thereafter, the DRP has listed the general/ specific obligations of the assessee and Damco India as per the Network agreement. In the assessment order for assessment year 2013-14 the Assessing Officer while passing the final assessment order reiterated the observations made by the DRP. The Assessing Officer has made no observation that the facts or the agreement in the impugned assessment year are in any manner at variance with the facts of the earlier agreement between the assessee and Damco International AS. The Assessing Officer based on the observations made by DRP finally concluded that the amount of Rs. 8,46,91,990/- is taxable as "Royalty" and "Fee for Technical Services" under the provisions of the Act as well as under Indo-Netherland Tax Treaty. 7. We find that in the case of Damco International AS vs. DCIT in ITA No.933 & 6465/Mum/2017 for assessment years 2012- 13 and 2013- 14, decided on 20/07/2020 the Tribunal has held that business support charges paid by Damco India are not taxable as FTS/Royalty under the Act or the relevant DTAA as the same is purely in the nature of reimbursemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icient receipts Damco India is entitled to retain "Cost + 10% Mark Up". In the impugned assessment year Damco India had surplus that was shared with the assessee in accordance with the terms and conditions of agreement. We observe that the entire risk is borne by the assessee and Damco India is insulated from the risk. It has been contended that the obligation under both the agreements i.e. agreement between Damco International AS and Damco India as was applicable in the assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14 (from 01/04/2012 to 31/12/2012) and the subsequent agreement between the assessee and Damco India effective from 01/01/2013 to 31/03/2013 relevant to assessment year 2012-13 are similar. This fact has not been rebutted by the Revenue. In fact, as pointed earlier, the DRP and the Assessing Officer has admitted this fact. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to the order passed under section 93CA(3) of the Act by the TPO for assessment year 2014-15 and 2015-16 in the case of Damco India, where Damco India has received minimum guaranteed network income of Rs. 32.41 crores in assessment year 2014-15 and Rs. 4.71 crores in assessment year 2015-16 from the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Thus, respectfully following the order passed by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case cited supra, we uphold the plea of the assessee and direct the AO to delete the impugned addition on account of receipt of network fees from Damco India Private Ltd. As a result, grounds no.1-3 raised in assessee's appeal are allowed." 10. Respectfully following the order of the Co-ordinate Bench (supra), we direct the AO to delete the impugned addition on account of receipt of network fees from DIPL. 11. As regards ITA No. 4325/Mum/2023, the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 933/Mum/2017 & ITA No. 6465/Mum/2017 for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14, has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. We hold accordingly. 12. In both the appeals, assessee has also challenged the validity of the assessment order claiming that the same has been passed beyond the limitation period provided in terms of Section 144C r.w.s. 153 of the Act. Vide letter dt. 30/07/2024, the assessee has conceded that it does not want to press the said ground, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 13. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
