9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PE nor Agency PE in the form of SESIPL. Considering the facts in totality in the light of the relevant provisions of the law and DTAA and the judicial decisions referred to herein above, we have no hesitation in setting aside the assessment order and accordingly we direct the AO not to treat the income of the assessee as taxable under the Act. - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. Nos.1350 & 1351/Mum/2016 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) - - - Dated:- 22-1-2018 - SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM Revenue by : Samuel Darse, Ld. CIT(DR) Assessee by : Jasmin Amalsadvala Nishant ORDER Per Bench 1. In the captioned appeals for Assessment Years [AY] 2011-12 2012- 13, the revenue is agg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble DRP has erred in holding that M/s. Swiss Reservices India Pvt. Ltd. ( SRSIPL ) is an independent organization and it has not acted as an agency of the assesse company and therefore, cannot be held to be an agency PE or Service PE as per Article 5(5) of the DTAA? The DRP failed to appreciate that M/s. Swiss Reservices India Pvt. Ltd. (SRSIPL) was performing core functions, which were inseparable part of the assessee s reinsurance business. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble DRP is correct in holding that the assessee s reinsurance premium receipts/income from reinsurance contract agreement with Swiss Reservices India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and accordingly estimated the profits @10% of total receipts and after attributing the same to the extent of 50% to Indian PE, worked out estimated income @5% of total receipts which came to ₹ 23.18 Crores. 3.3 The assessee raised objections against the draft assessment order with success before Ld.DRP vide impugned directions u/s 144C(5) dated 18/12/2015 where Ld. DRP following the order of this Tribunal for AY 2010- 11 held that the assessee did not have any business connection in India within the meaning of Explanation-2 to Section 9(1) and further SRSIPL did not constitute Service / Dependent Agent / Subsidiary PE in India. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Authorised Representative [AR] for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
