9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the assessee has filed a letter dated 12/02/2014 thereby stated that the issue relating to taxability of firm function charges does not arise in case of these three appeals and the only issue involved in these appeals is the taxability of borrowed service charges, which has been decided in favour of the assessee under the Mutual Agreement Procedure. Also when the issues involved in these appeals have already resolved under the Mutual Agreement Procedure, we direct the AO to grant the relief accordingly to the assessee after verification of fact that the issues have already been resolved under the Mutual Agreement Procedure. - decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2010, I .T.A. No. 7622/Mum/2010, I .T.A. No. 7623/Mum/2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant wherein it has been held that borrowed services fee received are not taxable as fees for included services . iv. The learned AO has erred in charging interest under Section 234B of the Act. 3. We have heard Shri Poras Kaka ld. Senior Counsel of the assessee as well as ld. DR and considered the relevant mater on record. The ld. Senior Counsel has pointed out that the issue involved in this appeal has already been considered and decided by this Tribunal in the number of decisions in the cases of group concerns of the assessee. He has referred the following decisions. _ P.T.McKinsey Indonesia v/s DDIT(IT), (ITA No.7625/M/ 2010) _ DDIT(IT) v/s McKinsey Incorporated Ors.(ITA NO.2289/M/ 2009) _ ADIT(IT) v/s McKins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res verification. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the relevant material on record, we noted that these issues have already been decided by this Tribunal in the various decisions as mentioned above in the group concerns of the assessee before us. Against the decision of the Tribunal, the revenue filed the appeals before the Hon ble High Court in 14 cases. Those 14 appeals were withdrawn by the revenue as per the order of the Hon ble High Court dated 23rd January 2013. We further note that the department had decided to withdraw those appeals before the High Court due to the reason that the issues were duly resolved under MAP. In this connection the letter dated 22/10/2012 as well as 21/01/2013 are relevant which are a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
