2013 (10) TMI 215

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eting and management services in India, is not fees for technical services as per Article 13 of India UK Treaty?      (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that amount of Rs. 24,33,62,066/- received from WNS India for marketing and management services outside India is not fees for technical services as per Article 13 of India UK Treaty?      (3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that amount of Rs. 24,33,62,066/- received from WNS India for marketing and management services outside India is not attributable to PE in India ignoring the force of attraction rule embedded in India UK Treaty? ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce of attraction rule embedded in India UK Treaty?      (9) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that an amount of Rs. 1,40,57,752/- received on account of sale of contract is not chargeable to tax in India? 3. So far as Questions (1) & (2) are concerned, Mr. Tejveer Singh, Counsel appearing for the Appellant states that the same is not being pressed by him. This is for the reason that the Tribunal by the impugned order has followed its decision dated 25th November, 2009 in the matter of WSN Global Services Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has in the context of the tax deduction at source provisions held that the fees for Marketing & Management Services ar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pt of Rs. 24,33,62,066/- being the fee for provision of marketing and management services outside India as the same are not subjected to tax in India (under Article 13(4)(c) of the India UK DTAA) nor same are attributable to service PE in India". On the above basis, Mr. Singh, Counsel appearing for the Revenue urged that amount of Rs. 24.33 Crores is attributable to a Permanent Establishment in India by virtue of force of attraction Rules. (iii) The CIT(A) and the Tribunal had come to finding of fact that the amount of Rs. 24.33 Crores received by the Respondent-Assessee was not attributed to any Permanent Establishment in India. This decision of the Tribunal being based on a finding of fact, does not warrant any interference by this ....