9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since last many years starting AY 2006-07 and upto AY 2014-15. The AO in his draft order, brought out that the department is in appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of the assessee which has been admitted. It has to be borne in mind that the panel is an extension of the assessment process and the AO is now bound by the directions of DRP. Accordingly, the matter needs to be kept alive in view of its pendency before the Apex Court. The panel accordingly upholds the adjustment made by the AO in this matter. The objections are rejected. Before us, the ld. CIT DR fairly submitted that the additions have been made as the revenue is filed appeal against the order of the Hon ble Jurisd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present year. 1.2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in not holding that the payments received by the Appellant from providing data transmission services via Space Segment Capacity are assessable as business profits in India and in the absence of a Permanent Establishment under Article 5 of the India-Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Netherlands ( the DTAA ), the receipts earned by the Appellant are not taxable in India. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in holding that the payments received by the Appellant as consideration for data transmission services are in the nature of Royalty as defined under section 9(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration for data transmission services are in the nature of Royalty as de fined u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act and Article 12(4) of the DTAA. b. The AO wrongly treated the payment received as a consideration for data transmission services are in the nature of Fee for Technical Services as de fined u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act and Article 12(5) of the DTAA. c. That the issue before us has been settled in favour of the assessee by the orders of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2014-15 (382 ITR 114) (Del.). 4. We have gone through the record before us. The para 3.2 of the DRP order reads as under: 3.2 The matter is in litigation since last many years starting AY 2006-07 and upto AY 2014-15. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
