9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... based on similar facts and identical grounds, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. A.Y. 2016-17 2. Tersely stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a tax resident of Germany. Return of income was filed declaring total income at Rs.30,52,26,440/-, which was offered for taxation at 10% under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany (DTAA). The income consisted of Income from Support services in relation to Information Technology, Marketing and Sales amounting to Rs.22.88 crore; Royalty of Rs. 1.40 crore; and Interest of Rs.6.23 crore received on ECB loans from its Indian subsidiary. The Assessing Officer (AO) held in draft order that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t from the A.Y. 2003-04 up to the A.Y. 2014-15, has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding EIPL does not constitute PE of the assessee in India. The ld. DR candidly admitted that there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the instant year vis-à-vis the earlier years. Respectfully following the precedent, we hold that the EIPL does not constitute the assessee's PE in India. This issue is therefore, decided in favour of assessee. 4. The only other ground is against considering Reimbursement from the Indian subsidiary as income. On perusal of the details, the AO observed that the assessee short reflected income of Rs.29,50,806. On being called upon to explain the reasons, the assessee submitted that the receip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Tribunal. The ld. AR requested for the condonation, which was not seriously objected to by the ld. DR. We, ergo, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. Both the sides are consensus ad idem that the facts and circumstances of the appeal for this year are mutatis mutandis similar to those for the A.Y. 2016-17. In fact, both the sides adopted arguments made for the preceding year as relevant for the year under consideration. Following the view taken hereinabove, we hold that the assessee was not having any PE in India in the form of its subsidiary EIPL and further that the amount of Rs.32,58,713 claimed by the assessee as reimbursement, which admittedly, has mark-up in this year as well, has been rightly included in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
