9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 2111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Year 2009-10 (supra) held that banking branch of the assessee in India would not constitute a PE qua the aforesaid income. Thus, the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal in assessee s own case, and which continue to hold the field as they have not been altered by any higher authority, fully cover the aforestated Grounds raised by the Revenue before us. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the decision of CIT(A), which is in line with the aforestated precedents in assessee s own case. Thus, the order of CIT(A) is hereby affirmed. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - ITA NO. 5502/MUM/2016 - - - Dated:- 10-8-2018 - SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant by : Shri Samuel Darse For th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) be set aside on the above ground(s) and of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. It was a common point between the parties that the issues raised in the appeal by the Revenue are fully covered by the following precedents in assessee s own case for earlier assessment years :- i) ITA No. 1207/Mum/2013 CO No. 69/Mum/2014 dated 17.04.2015 ii) ITA No. 4525/Mum/2014 CO No. 210/Mum/2015 dated 27.06.2016 So, however, in order to impart completeness to the order, the following discussion is relevant. 4. The respondent-assessee before us is a tax resident of Switzerland and is registered as a Foreign Institutional Investor (FII) in India with SEBI for the purpose of making investments in Indian securities. Assessee also car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gain and not a business income, as computed by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) also noted that for Assessment Year 2011-12 also, the Dispute Resolution Panel had decided the issue in favour of the assessee by placing reliance on the order of Tribunal for Assessment Year 2008-09 dated 17.04.2015 (supra) in the case of assessee. In this background, Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. Quite clearly, there are two facets to the dispute before us. Firstly, as regards the nature of gain from the transaction of securities; according to the Assessing Officer, it is a business income , whereas it has been held to be Capital Gains by the CIT(A). In this context, considering the precedents in assessee s own case for Assessment Years 2008-09 (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
