9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directly or indirectly - Decided against the assessee. - 4632 TO 4648 (MUM.) OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 12-8-2011 - N.V. VASUDEVAN, J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, JJ. Uday Soman for the Appellant. Jitendra Yadav for the Respondent. ORDER 1. These are 17 appeals by WSA Shipping (Bombay) (P.) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as appellant), a company engaged in the business of Cargo consolidation commonly known in the business as Non-Vessel Owners Cargo Carriers (NVOCC). The appellant is registered as a Multimodal Transport Operator (MTO) with the Ministry of Shipping Directorate General of Shipping, Govt. of India. 2. These appeals are against orders all dated 16-6-2009 of CIT(A) XXXI, Mumbai with reference to assessment year 2004-05. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontainer and loads the container with the shipping line. This concept can be fully understood with the following examples: 1. A shipper hands over the cargo to the appellant for delivery at Sydney, Australia. The volume of the available cargo as on date for Sydney may not be equivalent to full container load. As the appellant is under an obligation to deliver the cargo within time it stuffs this cargo in a container along with cargoes for other destinations en route to Sydney and dispatches the container to Singapore. Singapore is a Hub port wherein the cargoes come from various ports for rerouting to final destinations. 2. The appellant has a business associate in Singapore who turns around the cargo and routes the same to Sydn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vices rendered outside Indian territorial waters. It was also claimed that the appellant that it was not bound to send the Cargo only to the listed business associates and it was free to send the Cargo for onward movement to anyone who offer better quotation for onward movement. The appellant submitted that the business associates did not having Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The appellant submitted that the recipients of payment from the appellant were non-resident, and income had not accrued or arisen or deemed to have accrued or arisen to them in India. The appellants thus submitted that the receipts from the appellants were not chargeable to tax under the Act in the hands of the non-residents. Therefore the appellant was not req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... withdrawal all or any of the Grounds of appeal stated hereinabove." 9. At the time of hearing of these appeals ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that identical issue in the case of the very same appellant in respect of certain other non-residents, in respect of whom the assessee was considered as an agent under section 163(1) of the Act, on identical facts had come up for consideration before the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 1232 to 1245/M/09 and the Tribunal vide order dated 13-5-2011 was pleased to uphold similar order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal also held that there was a business connection between the appellant and the non-residents and that the appellant was covered by the provisions of section 163(1)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
