9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... axable in India - There was, as such, no question of holding the appellant as an agent - The agency was for the purpose of recovery of tax from out of the money paid during the AY - It is not connected with any other transaction - when the money received by the non-resident was not taxable in India, it should have automatically followed that the assessee is also not an agent which the Tribunal did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have been filed by the PILCOM against the order of the CIT(A) upholding the orders of the AO passed under section 163 of the Act treating PILCOM as agent of the aforesaid two non-residents, viz., (1) GGB and (2) LCI. 9.1 We have heard both the parties and have perused the order of the authorities below. 9.2 Similar issue was involved in ITA Nos. 2410 (Kol)/2002, 181(Kol)/2003, 163(Kol)/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Image Consultants/Mr. Gian Franco Lunetta. M/s. Laser Creation International, London and various sportsmen and sports associations is accordingly upheld. 3. Mr. Khaitan contended that the learned Tribunal by the impugned order also disposed of the connected appeals wherein it was held as follows: The payments received by GGB and LCI were not in the nature of payment of fees for technical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt which the learned Tribunal did not hold and thus committed an error of law. 5. Mr. Khaitan also drew our attention to an earlier unreported judgment and order of this Court dated 1st March, 2011 passed in IT Appeal No. 653 of 2004 (PILCOM v. DIT) wherein the assessment had been quashed, but the finding that the appellant in that case was an agent of non-resident was maintained. This Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India. Mr. Sinha submitted that he has instruction to say that no appeal has been preferred. 8. Mr. Sinha, learned Advocate for the revenue respondent did not dispute the submission advanced by Mr. Khaitan. 9. In that view of the matter, this appeal is disposed of by setting aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal for the same reasons as indicated in ITA No. 653 of 2004 quoted above. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
