Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 1548 Records
-
2022 (7) TMI 1349
TP Adjustment - Comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the functions, assets owned and risks assumed by the assessee under the segment is similar with A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - Respectfully following the above view, we direct the Ld.AO to exclude Infosys Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., Mindtree Ltd. and L&T Infotech Ltd. from the final list.
Working capital adjustment was not been granted while computing the margin of the comparables - We are of the opinion that the revenue was not justified in denying the working capital adjustment in order to bring the comparable companies for the purposes of broad comparison it is necessary to grant working capital adjustment that would eliminate the differences. AO/TPO is directed to allow the working capital adjustment on actuals based on the materials already available on record - Accordingly, this ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1348
Seeking direction against the Respondent to handover the peaceful custody and control of the project side being real estate project Sampada Livia - also seeking directions to the Local District Administration under Regulation 30 of CIRP Regulation to provide necessary assistance to the Applicant for taking position of the project site - Whether the order initiating CIRP was obtained in a fraudulent manner? - HELD THAT:- We do not think that the said question can be gone into by this Tribunal in the present IA in as much as an appeal against the order dated 18.04.2022 initiating CIRP of the Corporate Debtor is under challenge before the Hon'ble NCLAT in SLB WELFARE ASSOCIATION VERSUS M/S PSA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, M/S RUDRA BUILDWELL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. [2022 (11) TMI 294 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI] and is pending for adjudication. Further, there is no order of stay granted by Ld. Appellate Tribunal in the operation of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor or restraining the IRP to proceed with the CIRP.
Moreover, it is the settled law that the provision under Section 238 IBC has overriding effect over the provisions of other legislations including provisions of the RERA Act 2016. Further, the Resolution Professional is duty bound under the provisions of Section 18 of IBC, 2016 to perform certain duties and obligations as envisaged under the said provision including taking over the control and custody of the assets of the Corporate Debtor under Section 18 (f).
The Respondent, SLB Welfare Association are directed to handover peaceful possession and custody of the project in question to the Applicant within two weeks and file compliance report before this Tribunal and the Local District Administration are also directed to provide necessary assistance to the Applicant for taking possession of the project site, if required.
Application allowed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1347
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - mere wrong/inadmissible claim - disallowance of certain expenditure on estimated basis on some notional basis - disallowance of higher rate of depreciation - HELD THAT:- To invoke Section 271(1)(c), the entirety of circumstances must reasonable point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represents income and the assessee has concealed the particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. As noted, the quantum addition has been confirmed on the premise that the assessee is not eligible for higher rate of depreciation in the facts of the case. It is not the case of the Revenue authorities that the assessee has, in fact, concealed the fact relating to claim of depreciation allowance beyond any doubt. The Revenue Authorities have determined the lower claim of depreciation eligible to assessee on the basis of reappreciation of existing facts.
In order to attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. The disallowance of certain expenditure on estimated basis on some notional basis is neither the concealment of income particulars of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars as such.
While the claim towards expenditure may not be found acceptable in quantum proceedings, such disallowance per se cannot invite rigors of penalty. Where all material facts relevant to the issue were placed on record, mitigating circumstances to disprove any culpability of any sort against the assessee is established by implication. The claim of depreciation allowance, at best, can be taken as erroneous claim by the assessee. In the case of CIT (International Taxation) vs. Gracemac Corporation [2022 (3) TMI 904 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable as a matter of course in the absence of any element of falsity per se.
Mere making of claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. A variance in depreciation claim made in the return does not thus tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars per se. See Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1346
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Sufficient explanation for delay not provided - Transitional CENVAT Credit - HELD THAT:- What would not be available to the appellant is the ultimate benefit of both the remedies, but the appellant cannot be restrained from perusing both the remedies.
The delay has been satisfactorily explained. The delay condonation application is accordingly, allowed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1345
Validity of assessment - assessment was completed without AO’ being ACIT issuing notice to the Assessee under Section 143(2) of the Act - HELD THAT:- We do not find any good ground and reason to condone the delay and also interfere with the impugned order and hence, the application for condonation of delay and the special leave petition are dismissed.
Pending application, if any, stand disposed of.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1344
Maintainability of appeal against Faceless assessment order u/s 144B - scope of alternate remedy - petitioner argued that order impugned has been passed even without supplying the draft assessment order therefore, the same is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the order would go to show that the contention was advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that the draft assessment order dated 20.03.2022 had been supplied to the petitioner.
A perusal of the reply dated 24.03.2022, which was supposedly uploaded, does not indicate that any plea was taken that the draft assessment order was not received by the petitioner. However, we do not express any final opinion in this aspect of the matter.
As submitted that request for personal hearing, made through the reply dated 24.03.2022, was not considered and, that apart, the reply was also not considered, purportedly on the plea that “failed to load PDF documents”. Assuming that there was some problem, then also it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to have informed the petitioner about the same so that remedial steps could have been taken by the petitioner.
We are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference with the order of learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Three weeks’ time is granted to prefer an appeal before the appropriate authority. The petitioner may raise all grounds taken in these proceedings before this Court as also any other ground that may be available and the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1343
Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 142(2A) - admission of Company Petition under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The appeal filed by the assessee in the present circumstances, cannot be proceeded with, as revenue has also not sought any permission by the committee of creditors. Till the completion of moratorium period or upon the revival of corporate debtor as per the resolution plan approved by the adjudicating authority, the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as dismissed in limine. However, liberty is given to the parties to revive /restitute all the aforesaid appeals after the moratorium period expires or as approved by the adjudicating authority.
As in view the decision in the case of Mahavir Roads & Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd [2022 (6) TMI 1294 - ITAT MUMBAI] this appeal filed by the assessee is treated as dismissed in limine. Liberty, however, is given to the parties to revive/restitute this appeal after the moratorium period expires or as approved by the adjudicating authority. Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1342
Ex-parte order - Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the applicant for non-prosecution, in the absence of appearance on behalf of the applicant on the date fixed for hearing - assessee submitted that primary reason for non-appearance of the assessee in the matter was due to the fact that notice of hearing did not reach the assessee, because the assessee had shifted its premises; that due to COVID pandemic the assessee could not reach the Registry of the ITAT to intimate about the change of the address - HELD THAT:- We find that the reasons narrated by the assessee in his MA are reasonably justifiable for non-prosecution of his appeal before the Tribunal, which deserves lenient view. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we recall the impugned order of the Tribunal and direct the Registry to fix appeal for hearing on 4.8.2022. Parties be intimated accordingly.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1341
Time limitation in filing the impugned order - inordinate delay without any cogent reason - petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the appellate authority almost after more than 3½ years without any cogent explanation for inordinate delay - HELD THAT:- Though there is no specific period of limitation for filing the writ petition but it does not mean that the petitioner can approach this Court whenever it likes and there must be some cogent reason and explanation for approaching the writ Court. After all petitioner is not an ordinary individual lay person, it is a company. It must have engaged the professionals for handling such affairs of the petitioner’s company and petitioner cannot take the advantage by contending as it is an illiterate poor person residing in a far remote village.
In view of total lack of any explanation at all for this inordinate delay of more than 3½ years in approaching the writ Court this writ petition is dismissed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1340
Addition u/s 68 - penny stock purchases - ITAT deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- While allowing relief to the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has specifically held that there is no adverse comment in the forrn of general and specific statement by the Pr. Officer of stock exchange or by the company whose shares were involved in these transactions and he held that Assessing Officer only quoted facts pertaining to various completely unrelated persons whose statement were recorded and on the basis of unfounded presumptions. He further held that the name of the appellants were neither quoted by any of such persons nor any material relating to the assessee was found at any place where investigation was done by the investigation Wing. The ld. CIT(A) relying on various orders of Lucknow Benches and other Benches has allowed relief to the assessee - No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. The matter is concluded by findings of fact.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1339
Issues Involved: 1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment 2. Functional Similarity of Comparables 3. Application of Filters 4. Specific Comparable Rejections 5. Working Capital Adjustment 6. Risk Adjustment 7. Provision of Information 8. Opportunity of Being Heard 9. Levy of Penalty
Detailed Analysis:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment: The Assessee challenged the transfer pricing adjustment amounting to INR 17,93,46,830, asserting that the AO/TPO erred in rejecting the analysis conducted by the Assessee to determine the arm's length price of international transactions.
2. Functional Similarity of Comparables: The Assessee contended that several companies were wrongly considered functionally similar by the AO/TPO: - Persistent Systems Ltd.: Excluded due to extraordinary financial events like acquisition. - E-Infochips Ltd.: Excluded due to amalgamation. - Aspire Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.: Excluded due to amalgamation. - R.S. Software (India) Limited: Excluded due to functional dissimilarity. - Nihilent Ltd.: Excluded due to acquisition. - Dun & Bradstreet Technologies & Data Services Pvt. Ltd.: Excluded due to functional dissimilarity and high margins. - Puresoftware Pvt. Ltd.: Excluded due to varied activities and inconsistency in the TPO's approach. - Exilant Technologies Pvt. Ltd.: Excluded due to being a product company with varied services. - Infobeans Technologies Ltd.: Excluded due to diversified services and lack of segmental financials. - Cybage Software Pvt. Ltd.: Excluded due to being an onsite service provider and functionally different.
3. Application of Filters: The Assessee argued that the AO/TPO erred in applying various filters, such as data sufficiency, service income, turnover, export, forex spending, extraordinary economic circumstances, gross intangible to sales, different accounting year, and employee cost filters. The Tribunal did not provide specific rulings on these filters in the summary judgment.
4. Specific Comparable Rejections: - KALS Information Systems Ltd. and CG-VAK Software & Exports Limited: Rejected only on the basis of turnover filter. - TVS Infotech Ltd.: Rejected due to failing the export filter. - Akshay Software Technologies Ltd.: Rejected on the basis of forex spending filter. - Bhilwara Infotechnology Ltd.: Rejected due to failing the export filter. - Ingenuity Gaming Pvt. Ltd.: Remitted back for re-adjudication on comparability.
5. Working Capital Adjustment: The Assessee claimed that the AO/TPO erred in applying and performing the working capital adjustment. However, the Tribunal did not provide a specific ruling on this issue in the summary judgment.
6. Risk Adjustment: The Assessee argued that the AO/TPO did not grant the risk adjustment requested. The Tribunal did not provide a specific ruling on this issue in the summary judgment.
7. Provision of Information: The Assessee contended that the AO/TPO failed to provide details pertaining to yearly margin computations and unadjusted and working capital adjusted margin computations for the companies selected as comparable. The Tribunal did not provide a specific ruling on this issue in the summary judgment.
8. Opportunity of Being Heard: The Assessee argued that the AO/TPO did not provide computations related to various search filters applied, thereby depriving the Assessee of the opportunity to be heard in case of factual errors. The Tribunal did not provide a specific ruling on this issue in the summary judgment.
9. Levy of Penalty: The Assessee contended that the AO erred in issuing a notice for the levy of penalty under section 270A for underreporting of income. The Tribunal did not provide a specific ruling on this issue in the summary judgment.
Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO/TPO to exclude certain companies from the list of comparables due to functional dissimilarities and extraordinary financial events. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of adhering to judicial precedents and ensuring consistency in the application of filters and selection of comparables.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1338
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - change of opinion - HELD THAT:- Mere change of opinion on the same materials, set aside the reassessment notice and the consequential assessment order by its judgment in M/s. Tuff Tubes (Orissa) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar [2022 (2) TMI 1228 - ORISSA HIGH COURT]
This Court quashes the notice issued to the Petitioner u/s 148 of the Act and the consequential order dated 26th May, 2021 of the NAFAC rejecting the objections of the Petitioner to the reopening of the assessment.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1337
Maintainability of appeal against ITAT order - low tax effect - addition of bogus LTCG - penny stock purchases - Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue by noting the fact that the appeal is less than the monetary limit of Rs.50 lakhs fixed by the CBDT - HELD THAT:- Exception to penny stock cases from the stipulation of monetary limit would be indeed operable from 16.09.2019 that is only in the cases where appeal was filed on or after 16.09.2019.
Revenue would submit that though in the instant case the appeal before the tribunal was filed in the year 2019, as on the date when the circular was issued to take effect from 16.9.2019, the appeal was pending before the tribunal. As submitted that in the case of Rakesh Kumar Khemuka, the department had given specific instruction. In our considered view, the department having taken a decision and a circular having been issued on 6.9.2019 followed by official memorandum of 16.9.2019 taking a decision that the stipulation of monetary limit would be operable from 16.9.2019, it is of no significance as to whether the appeal was pending on the said date and whether the tribunal was hearing the matter. This is so because the cut off date fixed under the circular is that it will apply to cases where appeals are filed on or before 16.9.2019. In the instant case, admittedly, the appeal has been filed much prior to the said date.
For the above reason, we find that the order passed by the learned tribunal dismissing the appeal does not call for any interference
-
2022 (7) TMI 1336
Maintainability of appeal against ITAT order - low tax effect - addition of bogus LTCG - penny stock purchases - Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue by noting the fact that the appeal is less than the monetary limit of Rs.50 lakhs fixed by the CBDT - HELD THAT:- Exception to penny stock cases from the stipulation of monetary limit would be indeed operable from 16.09.2019 that is only in the cases where appeal was filed on or after 16.09.2019.
In the light of the stand taken by the Department, the monetary limit would be operable from 16th September, 2019, that is, only in cases where appeal was filed on or after 16th September, 2019.
In the light of the above clarification, we find that the order passed by the learned Tribunal does not call for any interference. Accordingly, we hold that there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in these appeals and they are dismissed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1335
Correctness of the ex-parte orders passed by the learned CIT(A) in the matter of assessment u/s 153C r.w.s 144 - assessee has been given sufficient opportunity of hearing and yet the assessee has not availed the same - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that having regard to the undertaking given by assessee and having regard to the fact that the assessee was indeed traversing through a very difficult patch of time, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication de novo on merits after given one more opportunity of the assessee, in accordance with the law and by of the speaking order.
The assessee, however, is cautioned to ensure that at least this time the assessee will duly co-operate and expeditious disposal of the remanded proceedings and scrupulous comply with the notices of hearing. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind the entirety of the case, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as above. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1334
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Whether order passed by the Ld. PCIT is null and void as it fails to mention any DIN number on its body or adhere to Circular No. 19/2019 by the CBDT? - HELD THAT:- We note that it is an undisputed fact that the impugned order u/s. 263 of the Act has been issued manually which does not bear the signature of the authority passing the order. Further, from the perusal of the entire order, in its body, there is no reference to the fact of this order issued manually without a DIN for which the written approval of Chief Commissioner/Director General of Income-tax was required to be obtained in the prescribed format in terms of the CBDT circular. We also note that in terms of para 4 of the CBDT circular, such a lapse renders this impugned order as invalid and deemed to have never been issued.
It is also important to note about the binding nature of CBDT circular on the Income-tax Authorities for which gainful guidance is taken from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Hero Cycles [1997 (8) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that circulars bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee.
The department, CBDT circular and the judicial precedents including that of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta, we are inclined to adjudicate on the additional ground in favour of the assessee by holding that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) is invalid and deemed to have never been issued as it fails to mention DIN in its body by adhering to the CBDT circular no. 19 of 2019. Accordingly, additional ground taken by the assessee is allowed. Having so held on the legal issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground, the grounds relating to the merits of the case requires no adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of above observations and findings.
Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1333
TDS u/s 195 - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) - payment made to Facebook Ireland Limited without deduction of tax at source - payment made by it to Facebook Ireland Limited was for services rendered for uploading and display of banner advertisement - HELD THAT:- Those are employees of Facebook and not the assessee herein. The assessee has merely raised an Invoice on Micromax. There is no use of facebook logo by the assessee as argued by the revenue. We hold that the assessee’s ultimate income is only the commission component of 15%. If assessee is a dependent agent, then where is the question of claiming any deduction for expenditure incurred on behalf of Principal and in that case, how the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act would even come into operation. Hence the reasoning given by the CIT(A) that assessee is an Agency PE cannot be accepted.
We find that the entire issue in dispute is no longer res integra in view of the elaborate decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Urban Ladder Home Décor Solutions Pvt Ltd [2021 (8) TMI 927 - ITAT BANGALORE]. This tribunal decision has duly considered other tribunal decisions and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited [2021 (3) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT]
We hold that the payments made to Facebook Ireland Limited cannot be disallowed u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1332
Excess cane price paid to members/non members as well as sale of sugar at concessional rate - HELD THAT:- Issues are no more res-integra as the tribunal’s coordinate bench’s recent order in The Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [2021 (10) TMI 1357 - ITAT PUNE] has restored the same back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication. Ordered accordingly. This assessee’s former twin substantive ground are allowed for statistical purposes on the very terms. Assessee appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1331
Seeking to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court - in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the High Court has set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court - HELD THAT:- It can be seen that as such the High Court has not at all considered whether the learned Trial Court was justified in refusing to condone such a huge delay of 2345 days. The High Court has also not appreciated and considered the fact that as such the order passed by the learned Trial Court refusing to condone the delay of 1522 days in so far as original defendant No. 1, had attained the finality. Original defendant No. 1 straightway challenged the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court by way of revision application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Whether the revision application before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be said to be maintainable or not has not at all been considered. Even otherwise, the remedy against an ex-parte judgment and decree available to the defendants was, either to file an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC or to prefer an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The defendants availed the first remedy by way of filing the applications under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. However, there was a huge delay of 1522 and 2345 days, which was not condoned by the learned Trial Court.
Even otherwise, against the ex-parte judgment and decree, the remedy by way of an appeal before the First Appellate Court was available. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have entertained the revision application under Section 115 of CPC and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court ought not to have entertained such a revision application challenging the ex-parte judgment and decree. Once there was a statutory alternative remedy by way of an appeal available to the defendants, the High Court ought not to have entertained a writ petition or revision application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - the High Court has committed a grave error in entertaining the revision petition under Article 227 challenging the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and in quashing and setting aside the same in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction while setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constriction of India - the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court in Civil Revision Petition, is hereby quashed and set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 1330
Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - management fee received by the Appellant is taxable as fees for technical services (FTS) under Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as under India - Singapore Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) - “make available" clause - claim of the assessee was in view of the make available clause in the Indo Singapore tax treaty, and in view of the fact that the said clause was not satisfied on the facts of the present case, no part of the amount so received by the assessee was taxable in India on the facts of the present case - HELD THAT:- Unless the recipient of the services, by virtue of rendition of services by the assessee, is enabled to provide the same services without recourse to the service provider, the services cannot be said to have made available the recipient of services. A mere incidental advantage to the recipient of service is not enough. The test is the transfer of technology, but then it is not even the case of the revenue that there is a transfer of technology, and what is highlighted is the incidental benefit to the assessee, which is treated as an enduring advantage. As observed in the binding judicial precedents referred to above, in order to invoke “make available‟ clause, “to fit into the terminology "making available", the technical knowledge and skill must remain with the person receiving the services even after the particular contract comes to an end” and “the technical knowledge or skills of the provider should be imparted to and absorbed by the receiver so that the receiver can deploy similar technology or techniques in the future without depending upon the provider”.
Technology will be considered "made available" when the person acquiring the service is enabled to apply the technology. In our considered view, that condition is not satisfied on the facts of the present case. We, therefore, hold that that “make available‟ clause in the Indo-Singapore tax treaty cannot be invoked on the facts of the present case- as no case is even made out by the revenue that as a result of rendition of these services to the Indian entity, there is any transfer of skill or technology.
An incidental benefit or enrichment which may add to the capabilities is not sufficient; the critical factor triggering the taxability in the source jurisdiction is the transfer of skills. That is what the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held in the case of De Beers [2012 (5) TMI 191 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and this judicial precedent, in the absence of anything to the contrary having been held by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, is binding on this forum. That condition about the transfer of skills and absorption of kill by the recipient of service, in our humble understanding, is not satisfied.
Once the taxability fails in terms of the treaty provisions, there is no occasion to refer to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as in terms of Section 90(2), “where the Central Government has entered into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India or specified territory outside India, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) for granting relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation, then, in relation to the assessee to whom such agreement applies, the provisions of this Act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to that assessee”. The taxability of impugned receipts, under section 9, is thus wholly academic. We leave it at that.
We uphold the plea of the assessee, and direct the Assessing Officer to exclude the sum from his taxable income as fees for technical services. The assessee thus gets the relief accordingly.- Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|