2023 (5) TMI 1249 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation granted for appeal delay; questions of law addressed; interest not warranted.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1 Versus AMADEUS IT GROUP SA

The appellant sought condonation of a 300-day delay in re-filing appeals, which was not opposed by the respondent. The court disposed of the condonation ... TP adjustment - adopting a percentage figure pegged at 15% for determination of profit attributable to the PE of the appellant/assessee in India - HELD THAT:- This issue covered by the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in a bunch of appeals, titled Director of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Travelport Inc. [2023 (5) TMI 227 - SUPREME COURT] Accordingly, the said question does not arise for our consideration, as it stands covered by the aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court. Characterization of receipt - booking fee received by the appellant/assessee as taxable as business income, or royalty - HELD THAT:- The said question raised by the appellant/revenue is covered by a decision rendered in New Skies Satellite Bv & Ors. [2016 (2) TMI 415 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Accordingly, this question also does not arise for our consideration, as it also stands covered by the aforesaid decision of the court. Whether payments, which are subject to withholding tax u/s 195 are not liable for interest under Section 234B of the Act? - Provisions contained below section 209(1)(d) of the Act introduced by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f 01.04.2012 would apply only in a situation where persons responsible for tax has paid or credited such income without deduction of tax. In the instant case, since the income has been received by the taxpayer after deduction of tax at source, the proviso is not applicable as has been held by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in BG International Ltd. [2021 (2) TMI 265 - ITAT DELHI], Even otherwise, when no addition sustains section 234B would not apply. None of the questions of law, as proposed, arise for our consideration. Issues involved: Application for condonation of delay in re-filing appeals, questions of law concerning profit determination, tax treatment of booking fee, and interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act.Condonation of Delay:- The appellant sought condonation of a 300-day delay in re-filing the appeals.- The respondent did not oppose the request, leading to the delay being condoned.- The applications for condonation were disposed of.Questions of Law:- The appeals pertained to Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2016-17 and challenged a common order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.- The appellant raised questions regarding profit determination, tax treatment of booking fee, and interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act.- The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in adopting a 15% profit figure for the appellant's Permanent Establishment in India, taxing booking fees as business income instead of royalty, and not levying interest under Section 234B.- The appellant's counsel acknowledged that the questions raised were already addressed in previous court decisions.- The court found that none of the proposed questions of law required consideration as they were covered by existing legal precedents.- The Tribunal's observations supported the conclusion that interest under Section 234B was not warranted in this case.- Consequently, the appeals were closed, and parties were directed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.This summary provides a detailed overview of the issues involved in the legal judgment, including the application for condonation of delay and the questions of law raised by the appellant regarding profit determination, tax treatment, and interest under the Income Tax Act. The court's decision to close the appeals based on existing legal precedents and the Tribunal's observations is highlighted, emphasizing the resolution of the case.