9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iting/transmitting the same on Sony Entertainment Television from Singapore. The assessee is a 'tax resident' of Singapore in terms of article 4 of the tax Treaty between India and Singapore (the Treaty). The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year on 29-11-2000 declaring total income at Nil as per the formula prescribed in Circular No. 742 providing guidelines to the Assessing Officer for computing tax liability of foreign telecasting companies. In the letter furnished along with the return, it was stated that the assessee did not have any tax liability in India in terms of the detailed submission made during the assessment proceedings for assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. According to the assessee, the business ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... profit attributable to his service, it should prima facie extinguish the assessment of the principal. According to the assessee, the above contention has also been accepted internationally. The protocol to the Austria-Germany Treaty goes a step further to suggest that where the dependent agent is paid an arm's length commission, he is not even regarded as a PE of the principal and, therefore, no profits of the principal are liable to tax in the country of the dependent agent. Thus, based on all the above, the assessee contended that no tax liability arises in India in the hands of the assessee vis-a-vis the ad revenue's earned by it. 3. The basis on which, the assessee declared its income was as per the CBDT Circular No. 742. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see had offered income to tax, following the ratio of Circular No. 742, the Assessing Officer was justified in bringing income so offered to tax, the assessee has preferred the present cross-objection before the Tribunal. 7. At the time of hearing of these appeals, it was brought to our notice that in assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01, identical issue had come up for consideration before the Tribunal; and the Tribunal had reversed the orders of CIT(A) and held that the advertisement revenue received by the assessee in India is taxable in India. As against the aforesaid order of ITAT, (since reported as Dy. CIT v. SET Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. [2007] 106 ITD 175 (Mum.), the assessee had preferred the appeal before the Hon'ble Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
