9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the aforesaid assessment order is unsustainable as it suffers from limitation and further submitted that the AO has erred in come to the conclusion that the payments received by the assessee from Shimizu India is taxable as business income on which tax is to be computed in accordance with provisions of Section 44BBB of the Act. The provisions of Section 44BBB are not applicable to the assessee HELD THAT:- After having preliminary look at the issues raised in appeal, prima facie, we are of view that the assessee has good case on jurisdictional issue as well as on merits. A specific query was made to the ld. Counsel for the assessee during the course of hearing regarding deposit of 20% of the outstanding demand. After seeking instruction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n India. The Department initiated reassessment proceedings in A.Ys 2013-14 to 2018-19 and issued notices u/s. 148 of the Act under erstwhile provisions. The primary issue in reassessment proceedings is salary paid to seconded employees reimbursed by Shimizu India Pvt. Ltd. The TPO held reimbursement of salary expenses as fee received for technical services . The AO and DRP held that, the reimbursement received by the assessee is taxable in India as the assessee is having project office in India which constitutes a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the aforesaid assessment order is unsustainable as it suffers from limitation. He pointed that in pursuance to the decision of Hon ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision in the case of CIT vs. Shandong Tiejun Electric Power Engineering Co. 86 taxmann.com 274 (Guj.). The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has prima facie good case on merits as well as on jurisdictional issue. 3. Per contra, Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR representing the Department vehemently opposed the stay applications filed by the assessee for the impugned assessment years. The ld. DR further stated that, if at all stay is to be granted, the assessee should be asked to deposit minimum 20% of the total outstanding demand for each of the assessments years under appeal. 4. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides. After having preliminary look at the issues raised in appeal, prima facie, we are of view that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
