9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1011X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18 (1), Mumbai (being the Respondent No. 1) under section 148 of the Act, to assess income of the alleged Association of Person (the AOP) formed between Siemens A.G. (being a company formed and registered under the laws of Germany - hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner No. 1) and Siemens Limited (being a company formed and registered under the laws of India-hereinafter to as the Petitioner No. 2); and b. the impugned order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the Respondent No. 1 dismissing the objections as raised by the Petitioners before him." 3. On 24 June 2015, Rule was issued in this Petition after making some observations. Accordingly, the order dated 24 June 2015 is transcribed below for the convenience of reference:- "Heard. Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has been issued only on the basis of an opinion formed by some other person and not on independent application of mind by the Assessing officer. These are matters which would require consideration at the time of final hearing. 4. In view of the above, interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d)." 4. This Petition was called out for a final hearing on 11 March 2022. At that time, it was pointed out that the Appeals filed by the Petitioners and the Respondents were pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). This Court noted that the findings of the ITAT in the pending Appeal would have a bearing on the disposal of this Petition. Accordingly, by order dated 11 March 2022, this Court requested that ITAT dispose of the two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the party is entitled to the gross consideration to be received by them for executing their separate part of the work. Lastly, it has been agreed that though both the parties are jointly and severally liable to DMRC in respect of the entire contract, they have agreed to indemnify each other for losses suffered on account of defaults committed by the other. Thus, in these circumstances, we find that the prerequisite condition for constitution of an AOP being has not been fulfilled. 42. Once there are separate obligations to be performed and there is no over lapping of work and both the parties have received monies payable under the contract independent of each other and Indian party is entitled to raise the bill separately for the work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y each member separately and not by the consortium. Thus, we agree with the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee that on these facts it cannot be held that there constitutes of AOP between Siemens AG and Siemens Ltd. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against department......" 8. The impugned reopening notice in this case was admittedly issued to the Petitioners on the premise that together, they constitute an AOP. This premise would no longer hold good, given the ITAT's finding that no AOP existed. Since the base of the impugned reopening notice no longer survives, the impugned reopening notice will have to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 9. However, we clarify that this judgment and order will not preclude the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
