9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. [ 2022 (4) TMI 1444 - ITAT BANGALORE ] having regard to the evidences filed by the assessee. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. - IT(IT)A No. 3432/Bang/2018 - - - Dated:- 6-7-2022 - SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri Sharath Rao, CA For the Revenue : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT DR ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 25/10/2018 passed by Ld.DCIT(IT), Circle 2(1), Bangalore for A.Y. 2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India') is the economic employer of seconded employees: 4. Ld. AO/ DRP failed to appreciate that amounts paid by Scania CV AB represented salary cost of Scania India where taxes were withheld u/s 192 of the Act; 5. Ld. AO/ DRP erred in re-characterizing mere reimbursement of amounts paid by Scania India to Scania CV AB as fees for technical services rendered, thereby holding it to be taxable in India while in fact, no services had been provided by Appellant; 6. Without prejudice to the other grounds, Ld. AO/ DRP have erred in concluding that 'make available' condition is satisfied and that payment was towards FTS; Others 7. The learned AO erred, in law and in facts, in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in case of M/s. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (IT) in W.P. No. 3619/2021(T-IT) by order dated 24.06.2022 Decision of Hon ble Pune Tribunal in case of M/s. Faurecia Automotive Holding vs. DCIT (IT) in ITA No. 784/PUN/2015 by order dated 08.07.2019 Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of M/s. Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in IT(TP)A No. 1646/Bang/2017 by order dated 13.04.2022 and Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in IT(IT)A Nos. 362 to 369 338 to 345/Bang/2020 by order dated 29.04.2022. 2.3 It is submitted that identical issue has been considered at length and in detail in the above decisions. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the taxable service and was to be treated as a service provided by a Foreign Company to an Indian Company. But in the present case, the legal requirement requires a finding to be recorded to treat a service as 'FIS' which is make available to the Indian Company. (xi) Accordingly, any conclusion on an interpretation of secondment as contained in the M.S.A. to determine who the employer is and determining the nature of payment by itself would have no conclusive bearing on whether the payment made is for 'FIS' in light of the further requirement of make available. 3. On the contrary, the Ld.DR placed reliance on orders passed by authorities below. 4. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
