9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents made to the same agents have been treated as commission and not as fee for technical services - Decided against revenue. - ITA Nos. 1820 & 1821/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 6-3-2019 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Sh. Rishabh Malhotra, Advocate ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against separate orders of ld. CIT(A)-35, New Delhi for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. In both these appeals the grounds raised by Revenue are common barring the amount of disallowance. Hence, both the appeals, having common issue, were heard together and are being disposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and not as fee for technical services. Relevant facts and findings of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the aforesaid case read as under : Facts: Further, AO observed that the assessee company had paid an amount of ₹ 88,91,816/- to M/s Graziano Trasmissioni North America USA and the assessee was asked to explain as to why the payment made to M/s Graziano Trasmissioni North America USA be not treated as royalty / fees for technical services in light of the services offered by the said company. The assessee company was further asked to explain as to why no TDS was deducted on the payment made to the said company. In compliance thereto the assessee company did not file any reply. Therefore, as per the provisions of the Act and in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... untry. No part of its income accrue or arise in India. Nor it is making available any technical knowledge, experience, skill, knowhow etc. to the assessee. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the case of the assessee is identical to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. Guy Carpenter and Company Ltd. (ITA No. 202/2012)- Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the ITAT, Hyderabad and deleted the addition of ₹ 88,91,816/- . In view of above, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground no. 2 raised by the Revenue. 4. Having consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
