9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT, and which fact remained uncontested even before us, there was no variation in the income as returned. The only point of disputation was with respect to whether the respondent was entitled to claim the benefits under Article 11 of the DTAA. It was that claim of the respondent which alone came to be negated by the AO. Accordingly, while the income offered became subject to tax at the rate of 20%, the total income as declared remained unvaried. As we read Section 144C of the Act as it stood at the relevant time, it would have empowered the AO to frame a Draft Assessment Order only if a variation in the income returned was suggested. This was clearly not the case which obtained. No error in the view as expressed by the ITAT. The appeals thu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he merits of case as to whether the assessee was eligible to claim benefit of the India Cyprus Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [DTAA] ? c) Whether the ITAT has erred in law by allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the intent of the legislature behind introduction of Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act This is a digitally signed order.] as per Finance Act, 2009 vide which all variations proposed on or after 01 October 2009 which is prejudicial to the interest of the eligible assessee mandates the Assessing Officer [AO] to forward the Draft Order under Section 144C of the Act? ITA 607/2023 a) Whether the ITAT has erred in law by holding that the Final Assessment Order passed on 09 February 2018 in this case is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO took notice of an international transaction between the assessee and its Associate Enterprises [AEs] and which led to the matter being referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] . The Arm s Length Price [ALP] was thereafter determined by the TPO in terms of an order dated 31 March 2017. However, no adverse inference was drawn. 4. The AO thereafter proceeded to frame a Draft Assessment Order on 22 December 2017 and came to form the opinion that the income as shown was liable to be taxed at the rate of 20% as per the provisions of Section 115A of the Act. The AO appears to have rejected the stand of the assessee which had claimed benefits of Article 11 of the India Cyprus DTAA. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision as it stands presently uses the expression any variation which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee . However, and prior to the provision being recast by Finance Act, 2020, the aforenoted provision employed the phrase any variation in the income or loss returned . It is thus manifest that it was only a variation which would impact the income or loss returned that Section 144C(1) of the Act would have stood attracted. 8. As has been noticed by the ITAT, and which fact remained uncontested even before us, there was no variation in the income as returned. The only point of disputation was with respect to whether the respondent was entitled to claim the benefits under Article 11 of the DTAA. It was that claim of the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
