9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of professional services rendered by the employees who were deployed on secondment basis, has been offered to tax. Therefore, to our minds, for the appellant/revenue to raise this issue when the arrangement has been in place for a substantially long period of time lent s uncertainty to an established business arrangement. Although we are conscious of the fact that the principles of res judicata do not apply to income tax proceedings, there is another principle which is equally well-entrenched, which is, the principle of consistency. [See Radhasoami Satsang v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT ]. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. - ITA 193/2023 - - - Dated:- 29-3-2023 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. The record reveals following undisputed facts: (i) First, the respondent/assessee entered into a Secondment Agreement [ SA ] dated 30.05.2011 with GPI. (ii) Second, the respondent/assessee had paid Rs. 14,33,55,806/- to GPI on cost to company basis, without any mark-up. (iii) Third, the respondent/assessee had earned professional fee amounting to Rs. 22,74,50,000/- by utilizing the services of seconded employees, out of which, approximately, Rs. 17 crores, has been earned from GPI alone. (iv) Fourth, the seconded employees rendered professional services to not only GPI, but other group companies as well, in the form of consultancy and advisory services. (v) Fifth, GPI and the respondent/assessee were operating fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusion is not convincing. In the submission filed by the appellant it has been established that the appellant for commencing its operation as the group corporate center to provide management consultancy services, has in the previous year relevant to the AY 2011-12, took on secondment employees having expertise in the field of consultancy and advisory from M/s. Godfrey Phillips India (P) Ltd. ( GPI , vide agreement dated 30.05.2011. It is also submitted by the appellant that the seconded employees were originally employed in the flagship group company, GIP, and then seconded to the appellant on cost to company basis, without any mark-up and the entire cost of these employees was cross-charged by GPI. In terms of the aforesaid agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... soned and based on appreciation of material placed on record. 15. Having heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The reasons why we have reached this conclusion are the following: 15.1 Concededly, the SA, as noted above, was executed on 30.05.2011. The arrangement between GPI and the respondent/assessee has continued to operate since AY 2011-12. The appellant/revenue, up until the AY in issue, (i.e., AY 2013-14) has not raised any red flag with regard to the said arrangement. 15.2 It is also not disputed that the respondent/assessee has utilized the services of the personnel which were deployed by it on secondment for according p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. 17. On these reasonings in the absence of any material change justifying the Revenue to take a different view of the matter and if there was no change it was in support of the assessee we do not think the question should have been reopened and contrary to what had been decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax in the earlier proceedings, a different and contradictory stand should have been taken. We are, therefore, of the view that these appeals should be allowed and the question should be answered in the af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
