9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sputed fact is that the revenue derived from Apalya Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Parragon Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. are not taxable in India as per Section 9 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that since the income does not form part of the total income of the assessee the credit of TDS was denied. The credit was also denied in A.Y.2013-14 as mentioned elsewhere. The assessee can claim the credit of TDS in the country in which the related income is offered to tax. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the DRP. Ground No.7 is accordingly dismissed. - ITA No.4325/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 8-12-2021 - SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by Shri Ravi Sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has a PE in India, ought to have taxed the distribution revenue under Article 7 of the DTAA instead of royalty, in terms of Article 12(6) of the DTAA. 5.That without prejudice to the grounds above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Ld. DRP, erred in disregarding the resolution arrived at between the competent authorities of India and the USA for earlier years with regard to the taxability of distribution revenue as business profits. 6.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in not allowing credit of tax deducted at source to the extent of INR 18,82,488/- duly withheld on revenue offered to tax in India. 7.That on the facts and circumstances of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the coordinate Bench (supra). We find force in the contention of the counsel. This Tribunal in assessee s own case has considered identical grounds of appeal and has decided in favour of the assessee. The relevant findings read as under :- 8. Respectfully following the findings of the coordinate bench we direct the AO to delete the impugned additions. 9. Ground No.2 with its related grounds is allowed. 10. Ground No.6 relates non allowance of the credit of tax deducted at source to the extent of Rs.18,82,488/-duly withheld on revenue offered to tax in India. 11. Facts on record show that the AO has not given full credit of tax deducted at source. We accordingly direct the AO to consider the claim of the credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the smallness of the amount no further action was taken. 18. We do not find any force in this contention of the Counsel. The ground No.7 of appeal in A.Y.2013-14 read as under :- That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in not allowing credit of taxes deducted at source of Rs.175334/- wrongly withheld on revenue not chargeable to tax in India as per section 9 of the Act. 19. It can be seen from the quantum involved in A.Y. 2013-14 it is more than two times the quantum involved in the year under consideration. 20. Be that as it may, the undisputed fact is that the revenue derived from Apalya Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Parragon Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. are not taxable in India as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
