9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-15 and 2017-18 to 2018-19 has consistently decided this issue in favour of assessee by following the decision rendered in assessment year 2006-07 [ 2011 (12) TMI 195 - ITAT MUMBAI] We find that DRP of the directions for the impugned AY has recorded the fact that the DRP in assessee s case has considered the issue in AY 2017-18 and the material facts remain the same during year under reference. The only reason for not following the order of Tribunal for preceding years is that the Hon ble Bombay High Court on the issue of existence of PE of the assessee in India has admitted similar question of law in appeal by the Revenue in assessee s case for assessment year 2008-09. No contrary decision was brought to the notice of Bench by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012-13, binding orders of this Hon ble Tribunal for AY 2006-07 in the case of appellant s predecessor company (WBPI) and for AY 2007-08 to 2014-15 and AY 2017-18 in appellant s own case. 4. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) submits that in ground no. 7 of appeal, the assesse has assailed the findings of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the Assessing Officer (AO) in holding Warner Bros. Pictures India Private Limited as Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) of the assessee/appellant. Therefore, income earned by the assessee as royalty from India is taxable in India. The learned AR submits that identical issue was raised by the AO in preceding assessment years. In AY 2006-07 the issue was raised by the AO for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 2007-08 ITA NO.8734/MUM/2010 10/10/2012 3 2008-09 ITA NO.8627/MUM/2010 22/02/2013 4 2009-10 ITA NO.7553/MUM/2010 05/03/2014 5 2010-11 ITA NO.1405/MUM/2010 27/10/2016 6 2011-12 ITA NO.1615/MUM/2010 08/11/2016 7 2012-13 2013-14 ITA NO.4877/MUM/2010 ITA NO.7635/MUM/2010 26/07/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Pictures (India) Pvt. Ltd. granting exclusive rights of distribution of cinematographic films on payment of royalty in terms of the above referred Agreement. During the period, relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee received Rs.39,19,73,663/- in the nature of royalty income from Warner Bros. Pictures (India) Pvt. Ltd. The assessee claimed the aforesaid Royalty Income as exempt under the Act as well as under India US Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The case of the assessee is that Warner Bros. Pictures (India) Pvt. Ltd. is not an agency PE of the assessee in India. In fact, the assessee has no PE, therefore, the royalty income is not taxable in India. The learned AR of the assessee asserted that the issue in appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the assessee is also dealing with the other Non Resident Companies, so assessee cannot be considered as Agency PE within the definition of Permanent Establishment. 11) We have examined this aspect also. As rightly held by the CIT (A) even if income arises to the Non-Resident due to the business connection in India, the income accruing or arising out of such business connection can only be taxed to the extent of the activities attributed to permanent establishment. In this case, the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India. Since the Indian company who obtained the rights is acting independently. Agency PE provisions are not applicable to the assessee company The assessee relied on the decision of Ishikawajma Harima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
