9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... propriate to remand back this issue for modifying the demand if any arise after verifying the records as per decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in foreign company s case, as the assessee has already deducted the TDS and paid the same with interest. Needless to say the assessee be given an opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. Ground No.2 and 3 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.4905 to 4907/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 28-11-2019 - Shri N. K. Billaiya, Accountant Member And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. Ashwani Garg, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TY OF TAX UNDER S. 201(1) 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the tax demand on the appellant under s. 201(1) for non-deduction of tax from the fee paid to a non resident foreign company; ignoring that - 1) The foreign company had already been assessed in respect of its income chargeable in India including income from the fee received from the appellant; and had discharged its Indian tax liability by direct payment. 2) Therefore, following Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2007]293 ITR 226 (S.C.), CIT v. Eli Lilly Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2009] 312 ITR 225 (S.C.) and the CBDT Circular No. 275/201/95-IT(B) dated 29.1.1997, the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (26.09.2011) for advance ruling on the issue of chargeability. AAR held that FOWC had no PE in India but the fee paid was in the nature of royalty under the DTAA and hence was chargeable. This AAR ruling was altered by the Hon ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 30.11.2016 wherein it is held that the payment to FOWC constituted business income under Art. 7 of the DTAA and the JPSI Racing Circuit constituted fixed-place PE of FOWC in India. Hence the Court held that the income paid was chargeable. Thus, one part of the JPSI contention was upheld by the AAR and the other part by the Hon ble High Court. Post the order of the Hon ble High Court, the Assessing Officer under s. 195(2) determined the chargeable income (comprised within the afor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther submitted that the assessee had deducted the TDS and interest thereon and paid the said amount, therefore, by following Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (S.C.), CIT Vs. Eli Lilly Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2009] 312 ITR 225 (S. C.) the same tax could not be doubly collected from the assessee as well. The Ld. AR further submitted that the question of interest payable by the assessee u/s. 201 (1A) does not arise as the income tax was assessed in the hands of the foreign company which was done by the revenue authority by passing assessment order in M/s. Formula One World Championship Ltd. and has been taxed in the hands of the foreign entity. Therefore, in the light of these the Ld. AR submitted that the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
