9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gether and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. We first take up I.T.A. No. 3711/Mum/2006. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee, M/s. McKinsey & Co. Inc., Belgium is a company incorporated in and a tax resident of the United States. During the relevant financial year under consideration the assessee charged an amount of ₹ 3,68,047/- to the Indian Branch of McKinsey & Co. Inc., a US based entity, in respect of certain services rendered to McKinsey India. Being the tax resident of US, the assessee is governed by the provisions of India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). During the course of assessment proceedings it was explained that since the income received by the assessee is not in the nature of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Article 12(4) of the India-US Treaty. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in holding that since there is no PE in India the income so arising in India cannot be taxed under Article 7 as 'business profits'. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset submitted that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the following decisions of the Tribunal in assessee's own case: a. Decision of the Tribunal in the case of McKinsey & Company, China for A.Y. 1997-98 (ITA No.7239/Mum/ 02 and others). b. Decision of the Tribunal in the case of McKinsey & Company, Inc. Switzerland for A.Y. 1997-98 (ITA No.7238/Mum/02). c. Decision of the Tribunal in the case of McKi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ADIT [(2006) 99 ITD 549 (Mum) (SMC)] taking the similar view. In the like manner another order passed in the case of McKinsey & Co. (Switzerland) dated 29.12.2005 in ITA No. 7238/Mum/ 2002 reiterating the same view has also been placed on record. I t was contended that the consistent view of the Tribunal in assessee's own cases has been in its favour holding against the taxation of the amounts in dispute. The learned Departmental Representative conceded that the facts and circumstances of the instant appeals were similar to those already considered and decided by the Tribunal. In view of the rival but common submissions and respectfully following the precedents, we uphold the impugned orders. 5. Both the sides are in agreement that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
