9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ween Government of India and Federal Republic of Germany - The recipient of the income did not have permanent establishment in India - the Tribunal has referred the question and to seek an answer as to whether the amount received would fall within the purview of the term 'Royalty' used in para 5 Article III (sic) of this Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement - the Tribunal was rightly of the view that 80% of the amount is taxable as royalty – thus, the order of the Tribunal is upheld – Decided against assessee. - IT REFERENCE NO. 382 OF 1997 - - - Dated:- 18-9-2014 - S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.K. MENON, JJ. Nitesh Joshi and Sameer Chitnis For The Respondent : Suresh Kumar ORDER 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1979 and clause 13 of the agreement dated 3rd August, 1981 as being in the nature of fees for technical services? (v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the consideration receivable in terms of clause 17 of the agreement dated 29th January, 1972, clause 15 of the agreement dated 18th August, 1979 and clause 13 of the agreement dated 3rd August, 1981 were Industrial or Commercial Profits within the meaning of the Article III (sic) of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and the Federal German Republic, and were therefore not liable to be taxed in India, the assessee company having no permanent establishment in India? 2. When this matter was placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal has referred the question and to seek a answer as to whether the amount received would fall within the purview of the term 'Royalty' used in para 5 Article III (sic) of this Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The Tribunal took the view that 80% of the amount is taxable as royalty. 4. The same issue and in connection with the same Assessee arose for determination for the assessment year 1979-80 in the reported judgment and the same has been answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 5. In the light of the fact that answer to question No.5 is already given by the aforesaid order and reported judgment that we are of the opinion that the present Reference can be disposed of in identical terms. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
