9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f of Kuchch (GOK) Project - PE in India - Held that:- For constituting Installation PE within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the India-Netherlands DTAA the test of duration of time for which the activities are carried out in India becomes relevant. In the present case the question is computation of the duration of time. The supply of equipments that have to be installed by the consortium could be said to be a direct preparation for coming into existence of an Installation PE. The DRP has not given any specific reason for coming to the conclusion that there existed an installation PE of the Assessee in India except to observe that the project has to be seen in a holistic way. Even if one were to look at the project in a holistic way, the question still remains open whether the supply of equipments by itself would constitute an installation PE. There are no provisions in the treaty providing for circumstances such as the present one when it can be said that an installation PE has come into existence. There are no circumstances brought out to show that the parties resorted to treaty abuse. In the given circumstances, we are unable to uphold the findings of the DRP that there existed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (vi) of the Act. For the reasons given in para 41 to 47 of this order, we hold that there was no installation PE in existence in so far as the ONGC VATMS AMC project is concerned. Therefore the receipts in question cannot be brought to tax India. Credit of taxes deducted at source- Held that:- It would be just and appropriate to direct the AO to consider the TDS certificate produced by the Assessee and after verification allow credit for prepaid taxes without insisting on the TDS being reflected in Form 26AS. The ground is treated as allowed. - I.T.A No. 574/Kol/2014 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2017 - Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM and Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Agarwal, AR For The Respondent : Shri.G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR) ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order of D.D.I.T.(IT)-1, Kolkata (also referred to as AO) passed u/s 143(3) of the Act r.w. s. 153(1) and section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) relating to A.Y.2010-11. 2. The Assessee is a subsidiary of HITT N.V. It is a company incorporated as per the laws of Netherland operating in the international market for safety, security and eff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 93 Total 274,165 16,348,474 GOK Project Offshore Supply of hardware 907,813 40,551,986 Offshore Supply of Services 55,937 2,498,689 Total 863,749 43,050,675 ONGC (AMC)Project Offshore supply of Services 10,000 596,300 Onshore Supply of Services 182,174 10,863,038 Total 192,174 11,459,338 ONGC (Extra Work)Project Offshore Supply of Services 54,419 3,244,976 GRAND TOTAL 1,803,493 93,124,598 Note : The revenue have been earned by the Assessee in foreign currency USD for GOK project and Euro for other projects. Such profits have been converted to INR as per the mechanism prescribed under Rule 115 of the Income tax Rules, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Total 192,174 191,744 430 25,641 ONGC (Extra Work)Project Offshore Supply of Services 54,419 10,116 44,303 2,641,759 GRAND TOTAL 1,803,493 1,606,808 196,685 11,692,346 Note : The profits earned by the Assessee are in foreign currency USD for GOK Project and Euro for other projects. Such profits have been converted to INR as per the mechanism prescribed under Rule 115 of the Income tax Rules, 1962 ( Rules ) using an exchange rate Euro = INR 59.63 and USD = INR 44.67. 5. The assessee had established a Project Office ('PO') in India in the year 2005 for the GOK Project, However, it has not performed any activity in relation to any of its contracts in India from the said PO. The project office has only been used to collect money and pay certain expenses on behalf of the Assessee through its bank account. Therefore, no part of the contract execution has been carri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome only to the extent that they are attributable to the PE, which is referred to as No force of Attraction principle. Some provide for taxing income/profits from direct transactions effected by the non-resident, provided the transactions are of the same or similar kind as that effected through the PE, which is referred to as Limited Force of Attraction principle. Some provide for taxing profits/income from all transactions whether they are attributable to PE or not or whether they are of the same kind of transactions carried on by the PE or not, which is referred to as Full Force of Attraction principle. As to which principle is applicable in a given case depends on the clauses of the convention between two countries. Article 7(1) of the DTAA between India and Netherlands provides for taxing profits of the enterprise in the other state only to the extent they are attributable to the PE in the other state, adopting No Force of Attraction principle. With the above broad principles in mind we will now consider the facts of the present case and the rival contentions on behalf of the assessee and the revenue on the various grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee before us. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the various grounds of appeal of the Assessee, it has to be clarified that the various grounds of appeal have been raised by the Assessee in respect of determination of income in respect of each of the project set out in paragraph-3 of this order from which the Assessee derived income during the previous year. We deem it convenient to decide the issues raised by the Assessee in the same order in which grounds of appeal have been raised by the Assessee before us. 10. Ground A raised by the Assessee reads as follows: A. Airports Authority of India (Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata Airport) Project: 1. The Deputy Director oflncome-tax (International Taxation)-l(l), Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ld.AO') has erred in proposing and the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the 'Hon 'ble DRP') has further erred in confirming that all the revenue from separate and distinct transactions, being part of a single and composite contract should be offered to tax in India since such contract is indivisible for tax purposes. 11. The Assessee was awarded a contract by Airports Authority of India (AAI) for Supply, Inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 44DA of the Act. 12. Before DRP the Assessee submitted that the assesse had setup a Project Office (PO) in India in 2005 for the purpose of execution of the GOK Project. However, the PO never became operational and there were no employees or business activity carried out by the PO during the year. In any case, the PO was not in respect of the project with AAI. It was argued that the AO was not correct in treating the aforesaid defunct PO as the PE of the assessee in India. The DRP in their directions held that the PO was not involved in the business activity related to the said project and hence, no part of the profits can be attributed to the PO. The Revenue has accepted the above directions of the DRP. In view of the above, the above ground has no impact on income. The learned counsel for the Assessee therefore prayed that the relevant ground may be treated as infructuous. Ground A is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. 13. Ground B raised by the Assessee relates to Airport Authority of India (Delhi Airport) Project. The Assessee was awarded a turnkey contract for supply, installation, testing and commissioning ('SITC') of Air Traffic Control ('ATC') at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome comprised in the receipt can be brought to tax. It was the stand of the Assessee that the receipt in question was attributable to off-shore supply of equipment which cannot be brought to tax. It was further submitted that the Assessee s PE in India had nothing to do with the aforesaid contract and that in terms of Article 7(1) of the DTAA between India and Netherlands only profits attributable to the PE can be brought to tax. It was argued that since the supply of equipments was off-shore, there was no accrual of income in India. It was also the plea of the Assessee that it is not correct to look at all revenues arising from separate and distinct transactions, as part of a composite contract and that these contracts were divisible and independent contract for different activities. 14. The AO however held that since the Assessee had a PE in India the revenue from off shore supply of equipment was also liable to be taxed. Applying Sec.44DA of the Act, the AO brought to tax rupee equivalent of 50% of euro 240155 (Euro 274165 minus Euro 34010 being receipts towards offshore supply of hardware) to tax. 15. The DRP accepted the contention of the Assessee that the PE of the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. A perusal of Annexure-2 to this order which is annexure-I to the purchase order dated 4.12.2008 by AAI, shows that the supply is of ATC System and are part and parcel of the equipment. Though Software and Licenses is shown as a separate item, it cannot operate independently and had to be regarded as part of the Hardware. It has been the plea of the Assessee that the software was supplied for the mere purpose of operating the equipment supplied under the Project. The Ld. DRP also in its directions (at page 116 of the paper-book) has also observed that the appellant has granted software and licenses to use the software for the purpose of operating the equipment supplied . These circumstances clearly go to show that the software and licenses were part of the hardware and imbedded therein. The AO or the DRP have not in their orders given any finding that the software and licenses are independent of the hardware as no specific plea in this regard was put forth by the Assessee before them. We however hold, in the given facts and circumstances of the case and the overall evidence on record, that the software and licenses are part of the hardware supplied by the Assessee. 17. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ftware was required for the effective functioning of the machine, and the amount bifurcated towards the cost of software cannot be treated as 'Royalty'. The relevant extract has been given below: It has already been established on the basis of facts before us that the transaction involved in this case was that of sale of diamond scanning machine. The customer had no interest in the software except to the extent of effective functioning of the machine. Thus, in view of the judgments discussed above, it has to be treated as transaction of sale of machine in the hands of the assessee and the amount bifurcated for software cannot be treated differently as consideration in the nature of Royalty as envisaged under section 9(l)(vi) of the Act and since the assessee has no P.E. in India, as per admitted facts on record, the amount of profit arising on receipt of sale consideration of machine would not be liable to be taxed in its hands in India. 19. Similar views have been propounded in the following judicial pronouncements: DIT v. Nokia Networks O.Y. (2013) 358 ITR 259 (Delhi HC) CIT v. Alcatel Lucent Canada (2015) 372 ITR 476 (Delhi HC) DOIT vs Reliance Industr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dassault Systems (2010) 322 ITR 125 (AAR); Geoquest Systems B.V. (20 I 0) 327 ITR 00I ( AAR): Motorola Inc. v/s DCIT (2005) 95 ITD 269 (Delhi SB) TII Team Telecom International (P) Ltd. (2011) 12 ITR(T) 688 (Mumbai ITAT) DIT vs lnfrasoft Ltd. (2013) 264 CTR 329 (Delhi HC) Financial Software and Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (2014) 47 Taxmann.com 410 (Chennai ITAT) DDIT vs Solid Works Corporation (2010) 152 TTJ 570 (Mumbai ITAT) Aspect Software Inc., (2015) 155 ITD 409 (Delhi ITAT) CIT v. Alcatel Lucent Canada (2015) 372 ITR 476 (Delhi HC) In the present case, the software was supplied for the mere purpose of operating the equipment supplied under the Project. The Ld. DRP also in its directions (at page 116 of the paperbook) has also observed that the Assessee has granted software and licenses to use the software for the purpose of operating the equipment supplied . Accordingly, it cannot be held that the consideration received by the Assessee for supply of such software/ licenses for the mere purpose of operating the equipment is for a 'copyright' in such software. Accordingly, such consideration is for the purchase of a 'copyrighted arti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the nature of training income, despite the fact that very limited time was spent on training (one half day training) and; The Ld.AO has erred in proposing and Hon'ble DRP has further erred in confirming that such income is in the nature of 'fees for technical services' ('FTS') under Article 12(5) of the India Netherlands DTAA since such services 'make available' technical knowledge, skills etc. to the customer. 25. We have already seen that the Assessee as part of the supply of equipments to ATC System Project, AAI New Delhi Airport Project, provided project management services, installation, testing and commissioning services etc. to AAI. This included tuning of the radar and its integration and commissioning with the systems of Delhi airport (purchase order at PB page 242-250 and Invoice dated 11 December 2008 at PB Page 251). From the invoice (which has been extracted in the earlier part of this order), it can be seen that the net consideration for these services is EUR 154,655 (equivalent to INR 9,222,093) which has been assumed as FTS in the assessment order. It was the plea of the Assessee that the AO has wrongly assumed the entire consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f various Indian courts which have dealt with meaning of the term 'make available' and held that services are said to be made available only when the person acquiring the service is enabled to apply the technology embedded in the services provided to him independently. A few such decisions have been given in below: CIT vs De Beers India Minerals (P) Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 467 (Karnataka HC) Raymond Ltd. (2003) 86 ITD 791 (Mumbai ITAT) - Intertek Testing Services India (2008) 307 ITR 418 (AAR) C.E.S.C Ltd vs. DCIT (2003) 275 ITR 15 (Kolkata IT AT) Guy Carpenter Co. Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 504 (Delhi HC) Andaman Sea Food (P.) Ltd. (2012) 18 ITR(T) 509 (Kolkata ITAT) - Income-tax Officer, Ward 12 (2), Kolkata v . Right Florists (P.) Ltd. (20]3) 25 ITR(T) 639 (Kolkata ITA T) B4U International Holdings Ltd. (2012) 18 ITR(T) 62 (Mumbai JT AT) Ernst and Young (P) Ltd. in re (2010) 323 ITR 184 (AAR) Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCJT (2009) 313 ITR 263 (IT A T Mumbai -SB)] Worley Parsons Services (P) Ltd., In re (2009) 313 ITR 74 (AAR) ACJT vs Viceroy Hotels Ltd.(20 12) 18 ITR(T) 282 (ITAT Hyd) R.R. Donnelley India Outsource Private Limited (2011) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that such training provided did not involve provision of any technical knowledge/ know-how to the customer but was provided only to familiarize them with the equipment and hence, it cannot be said that any technical services were made available to the customer. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of ACIT vs PCI Ltd. (2011) 46 SOT 183 (Delhi ITAT), wherein the ITAT held that training services pertaining to training of employees of customers to explain the buyers salient features of products imported by assessee and to impart training to customers to use equipment is not taxable as FTS since such payment could not have been made for availing technical services and that the technology was never made available to the assessee. Reference was also made to the following other decisions laying down identical proposition United Helicharters (P) Ltd. (2013) 60 SOT 58 (Mumbai ITAT) Lloyds Register Industrial Services (India) (P.) Ltd. (2010) 36 SOT 293 (Mumbai ITAT). 31. The learned DR relied on the Directions of the DRP. After considering the rival contentions, we are of the view that the action of the DRP in directing the treat the sum of Euro 154655 as F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cution of this project in the year 2005. However, the PO never became operational and was not involved in any activity pertaining to this project. Income from offshore supply of equipment by the Assessee to the consortium is the subject matter of dispute in the Grounds of appeal C raised by the Assessee. Ground 1 The Ld.AO has erred in proposing and Hon'ble DRP has further erred in confirming that the appellant has an Installation Permanent Establishment ('PE') in India as per Article 5(3) of the India Netherlands DTAA, considering the fact that the project has been in existence in India for a period of more than six months. Ground 2 The Ld. AO has erred in proposing and Hon'ble DRP has further erred in confirming that the sale of equipment under this project has not been concluded at the off shore level but has been concluded in India, since the goods were 'accepted' by the customer in India. Ground 3 The Ld.AO has erred in proposing and Hon'ble DRP has further erred in confirming an ad-hoc attribution amounting to INR 4,305,071.25 (being 10% of the total income earned during the year) to the alleged Installation PE of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue that the there was an Installation PE of the Assessee in existence during the previous year and that the supply of equipments was attributable to such PE and therefore the income from supply of equipments is chargeable to tax in India under the India-Netherlands DTAA is unsustainable. It was contended that the AO has not appreciated the facts of the case and the correct legal position that during the subject year no installation activity has been carried out for the GOK project. Under this project, the Assessee has only undertaken off shore supply of equipment and off shore services performed on the equipment in Netherlands in the subject year. The said services consisted of sizing of equipment, embedding the software in it and testing of the equipment in Netherlands. Therefore, since no installation work was carried on by the appellant during the subject year, the question of constitution of an 'Installation PE' does not arise. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following judicial precedents in which it has been held that in the absence of installation activity, the assessee could not be said to have an 'Installation PE' in India: Andhra Pradesh Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be said to be a direct preparation for coming into existence of an Installation PE. The DRP has not given any specific reason for coming to the conclusion that there existed an installation PE of the Assessee in India except to observe that the project has to be seen in a holistic way. Even if one were to look at the project in a holistic way, the question still remains open whether the supply of equipments by itself would constitute an installation PE. The starting point of time would be when actual installation starts. The DRP s direction clearly holds the view that no installation activity happened during the relevant previous year. The decisions cited on behalf of the Assessee hold the view that unless installation activities commence an installation PE cannot be said to have been constituted. There are no provisions in the treaty providing for circumstances such as the present one when it can be said that an installation PE has come into existence. There are no circumstances brought out to show that the parties resorted to treaty abuse. In the given circumstances, we are unable to uphold the findings of the DRP that there existed an Installation PE of the Assessee and profi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, testing and commissioning of Vessel and Air Traffic Management System (VATMS). The grievance of the Assessee are projected in Gr. D raised by the Assessee before the Tribunal. 39. In the year 2006, the Assessee was awarded a contract by ONGC for supply, installation, testing and commissioning of Vessel and Air Traffic Management System (VATMS) system along with the provision of maintenance services. This contract envisaged a warranty period of 1 year after handing over of the project site and provision of annual maintenance services (AMC services) for 6 year post such warranty period. The main contract including supply, installation, testing and commissioning of the V ATMS system (including 1 year warranty period) was completed on 1st October 2008. Thereafter, the Assessee started providing maintenance services in relation to the VATMS equipment/ system for a total period of 6 years beginning 1st October 2008 i.e. after the project was handed over to the customer. (PB page 323 contains the AMC Schedule). Accordingly, during the relevant previous year relevant to AY 2010-11, the Assessee provided AMC services for the VATMS equipment installed by it in earlier years. These ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessee submitted that as per Article 5(3) of the India- Netherlands DTAA, the term 'Permanent Establishment' includes a building site or construction, installation or assembly project constitutes a permanent establishment only where such site or project continues for a period of more than six months. It was submitted that the AO has concluded that since the ONGC project i.e. the project for supply, installation, testing and commissioning of VATMS system (along with the provision of AMC services) has been continuing since the year 2006, the specified threshold of six months as mentioned in Article 5(3) of the India Netherlands DTAA has clearly been exceeded. It was his submission that the AO has not appreciated the facts of the case that the installation activity in the project in question was completed in October 2007 and no installation activity has been carried out by the Assessee (or any contractor) in India during the subject year. The Assessee has only provided maintenance services during the subject year on equipment which was handed over to ONGC in 2008. The ONGC in its letter dated 1 October 2008 has specifically confirmed that the system/ equipment was install ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d handed over to the customer. Therefore, once the project site/ equipment is accepted and handed over to the customer, any services (including maintenance services etc.) provided post such acceptance cannot be regarded as part of 'Installation activity' leading to creation of an Installation PE. The learned counsel for the Assessee also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble AAR in the case of Airports Authority of India (2008) 299 ITR 102 (AAR), wherein the AAR observed that an earlier 'Installation PE' could not have any bearing on the contract for repairs and maintenance work to be carried out post completion of such installation. It was pointed out that the above position has also been confirmed by International tax commentator Klaus Vogel in his commentary Klaus Vogel on Double Taxation Conventions wherein he has opined that repairs and maintenance services performed after the formal acceptance of the installation work by the customer shall not be included in the minimum threshold for constitution of an 'Installation PE'. The relevant extract of the commentary is given below: Repair and Maintenance work performed after such formal ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t would not be correct to hold that the fixed place of business of a contractor (an Indian enterprise) i.e. his own premises or even the project site, should be considered as the PE of the foreign enterprise in India. It was reiterated that all the on-shore work performed as part of this contract was sub-contracted to Elcome, a local independent contractor. The Assessee provided only limited technical support to the contractor remotely from the Netherlands. Further, Elcome did not setup any office etc. at the project site. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of National Petroleum Construction Company (Infra) wherein it has been held as follows: The activities at site carried on by any contractor through a sub-contractor would not count towards the duration of the contractor's PE, as in that case, the construction site or project cannot be construed as a fixed place of business of the contractor and would fail one of the essential tests of paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the DTAA. 46. It was argued that Article 5(1) and 5(3) of the India-Netherlands DTAA are to be read harmoniously. It was submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other sub-contractors, the period of the sub-contractors must be considered for determining the PE of the general contractor. It was reiterated that in the present case, the Assessee has sub-contracted the entire on-shore maintenance work for this project to Elcorne and was not involved in any activity itself in India. Therefore, the time spent by the Indian contractor cannot be considered as time spent by the appellant in India to crate its PE in India. 47. The learned DR relied on the directions of the DRP in this regard. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. Our conclusions in para-36 with regard to existence of an installation PE in respect of GOK Project will equally apply to this project also. Admittedly, no installation activity was carried out during the previous year and therefore the question of an installation PE of the Assessee existing during the previous year does not arise for consideration at all. We are in complete agreement with the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the Assessee on this aspect. Accordingly, we hold that since the VATMS equipment was already accepted and handed over to the customer in the year 2007 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received consideration for provision of such remote off-shore assistance in relation to providing such interface. The revenue held that the receipt was in the nature of Royalty chargeable to tax. The revenue further concluded that since there was an installation PE and the receipt of royalty was attributable to the PE, the same has to be taxed as business income. Since no details were furnished by the Assessee, the revenue invoked Sec.44DA of the Act and brought to tax 50% of the receipts in question. Aggrieved by the action of the revenue, the Assessee has raised Gr. E 1 2 before the Tribunal which reads thus: Ground 1 The Ld.AO has erred in holding and Hon'ble DRP has further erred in confirming that income from off-shore provision of services is in the nature of 'royalty' as per Article 12 of the India Netherlands DTAA, effectively connected to the alleged PE of the appellant in India. 50. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that the DRP was not right in considering the receipt in question as royalty. In this regard it was submitted that during the previous year the Assessee had only undertaken off-shore provision of services under the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxable in India as per Article 5(3) of the India- Netherlands DTAA. 51. The learned DR relied on the order of the DRP. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Assessee, the contentions raised by the Assessee and the reasoning of the DRP on this issue is similar to the issue decided in Gr. B -2. The conclusions given therein in para-16 to 20 will be equally applicable to this ground also. To avoid repetition and lengthen the order, we do not wish to reproduce the same. Suffice it to say that the sale of equipment and its accessories with software imbedded in the equipments cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee as business income as the Asssessee does not have a PE in India to which the profits can be said to be attributable. In the circumstances, the revenue cannot bifurcate the consideration towards software and license embedded in the equipment from the combined sale value of the equipment and accessories and seek to bring to tax the amount bifurcated for software as in the nature of Royalty as envisaged under section 9(l)(vi) of the Act. For the reasons given in para 41 to 47 of this order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AS, Form 16A (TDS Certificates) is used by a deductor are conclusive evidence of TDS being deducted and therefore, the credit of the same shall be appropriately granted to the deductee on the basis of such TDS certificates. The fault on the part of deductor shall not burdensome the deductee from claiming TDS credit due to the fact that once deductor deposited TDS with the government and issues TDS certificates showing such claim of TDS, deductee shall be eligible for claiming TDS credit on the basis of TDS certificates, even though no TDS claim appears in Form No. 26AS. The learned counsel has in this regard brought to our notice Instruction No. 5 dated July 8,2013 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ), wherein it has directed the assessing officers that whenever an assessee approaches them with requisite details and particulars in the form of TDS certificate as an evidence against any mismatched TDS amount, the said officer shall, after due verification, allow the credit of the same to the assessee. The learned counsel for the Assessee also placed reliance on judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that even if the amount of TDS is not being reflected in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
