9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 917X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w as well as in facts. 1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP directions issued by the Ld. DRP on 22 January, 2025 is barred by limitation being issued beyond timeline prescribed under Section 144C(12) of the Act. Consequently, the order dated 23 January, 2025 passed by the Ld. AO pursuant to such DRP directions is also without jurisdiction, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. That the Ld. AO and the Ld. DRP on the facts and in law, have erred in holding that fee for freight/logistic support services amounting to INR 1,99,77,26,225 received by the Appellant, for services rendered outside India, is in the nature of Fee for Technical Services / Fee for Included Services ("FTS"/ "FIS") as per the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12 of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("India-USA DTAA"). 3. That the Ld. AO and the Ld. DRP, on the facts and in av have erred reimbursement of Global Account Management (GAM) charges amounting to INR 9,54,79,472 received by the Appellant from Expeditors International (India) Private Limited ("El India") is in nature of FTS / FIS under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounting to Rs. 1,53,56,641/-. 5. Against the above additions proposed by the Ld. AO the assessee raised the objections before the Ld. DRP who vide its order dated 30-12-2024 recorded the findings in para no 5.6. as under: 5.6. The assessee has submitted that the ITAT by following its own order for A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12 has provided complete relief to assessee by consolidated order passed for A.Y. 2012-13 to A.Y. 2015-16 and A.Y. 2017-18 and separate order for Ays 2018-19, and A.Y. 2021-22. There is no change in factual and legal matrix in the case from A.Y.2021-22 and earlier years as well. The panel directs the AO to verify if the decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT relied upon by the assess are based on identical facts and has been accepted by the revenue and no appeal has been filed. If the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT has been accepted by the revenue, the AO shall follow the same. On the hand if the decision has been challenged before higher appellate forum, in order to keep the issue alive, the panel upholds the conclusion of the AO, following its decision in the earlier A.Y. 6. The Ld. AO in his final assessment order dated23-01-2025 confirmed the impugned additions. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S under the Act as well as India-USA DTAA, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in its decision dated 02.05.2023 in ITA No. 355/Del/2023 for AY 2020-21 in turn relying on its decision dated 31.10.2022 in ITA No. 1464/Del/2022 for AY 2018-19 observed and held as under:- "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 by the Tribunal while deciding the appeals for subsequent assessment years, as noted above. In fact, though, the departmental authorities were conscious of the fact that the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee in earlier assessment years, however, for the purpose of keeping the issue alive, a contrary decision has been taken. There being no change either in the factual or legal position relating to the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s payer, the assessing officer had held that the payment made is in the nature of royalty, hence, the assessee was required to deduct tax at source. Since, the assessee has not done so, the assessing officer made disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. However, while deciding the issue in case of the payer, the Hon'ble High Court held that the payment made, being not in the nature of royalty, no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act can be made. Thus, in view of the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in case of the payer, the addition made cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we delete it. This ground is allowed." 7. It is, therefore, apparent that all the issues challenged by the assessee in ground Nos. 2, 3 and 4 relating to receipts on account of logistic support services, reimbursement of global account management charges and lease line charges respectively have been consistently decided in favour of the ITA No. 2855/Del/2023 7 assessee in preceding AYs, the latest being the decision (supra) of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 355/Del/2023 for AY 2020-21 wherein the Tribunal in turn r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
