9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be despondent owner M/s. B.P. Shipping,. U.K. (ii) The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in concluding that U.K. India DTAA benefit was applicable to the said transactions without appreciating that the issue under reference is related to freight received by TTMI and since the TTMI did not cooperate with the department by producing the charter agreement between itself and the owner of the goods and also did not divulge the identity of the owner of the goods, it was liable to pay tax on the freight computed on the goods carried by it. (iii) The appellant craves leave to add/alter/modify/delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 2. M/s B. P. Shipping Ltd. is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom in 1915 as Brit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The said relief was denied by the AO. On appeal, the ld. CIT (A) has allowed the claim of the assessee with the following observations:- 6. Having considered the order passed U/s. 172 (4), the submissions of the evidence filed, the following pertinent observations and considered opinion on the issues raised are made: i) There is no doubt that M/s BP Shipping Ltd is the owner of the ship and the ship is operated by it only by using its own Captain and staff etc. The AO had doubted the resident status of the company and its bonafide because the account in CITI bank was in US. The appellant had submitted clarification from the CITI Bank in the appellate proceedings within the Bank had certified that the account is of BP Shipping Ltd, U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grieved by the aforesaid Order, the Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the ld. Departmental Representative was asked to point out the infirmities in the order of the ld. CIT (A). He, however, could not point out any such infirmity. The appeal was, therefore, adjourned for further hearing on 19.03.2013 with a view to enable the Department to point out the deficiency and infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A). On 19.03.2013, the ld. Departmental Representative again could not point out any infirmity or deficiency in the order of the CIT (A). In this view of the matter, the order passed by the CIT (A) is confirmed. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 6. Before parting with the matter, it is clari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
