TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of re-opening the assessment u/s. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 1 : 2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject the impugned re-opening u/s. 148 is bad in law and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held as such. 1 : 3 The Appellant submits that the impugned re-assessment proceedings u/s. 148 and the Order passed in pursuance thereof was not in accordance with law and consequently ought to be struck down as void ab-initio. Without prejudice to the foregoing: 2: 0 Re.: Ex-parte assessment: 2 : 1 The Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in holding that 20% of the sales made in India were its profits taxable in India. 4 : 2. The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject 20% of sales made in India cannot be said to be its profits taxable in India and the stand taken by the Assessing Officer in respect thereof is erroneous, misconceived and illegal and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held as such. 2.1. At the very outset , the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the issues involved in all these appeals qua the facts are identical, therefore all these appeals were heard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt and SJMHK in India. Further as the receipt of management fees fell within the transfer pricing provisions the matter was scrutinized by the Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") who by his Order dated 28 February 2005 (pg. No. 103 of the paperbook) held that the management fees received of Rs. 79,20,240/- for A.Y. 2002-03 for sales made by SJMI and SJMHK was at arm's length and no addition was called for. 3.2. Before proceeding further, it would be pertinent to understand the facts and the fate of SJMHK. In the assessment orders in the case of SJMHK for assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05, the Assessing Officer held that the Indian branch of SJMHK was a Permanent Establishment in India of the assessee and a business connectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erein the Tribunal has held that the TPO has accepted the gross profit rate of 8.81% declared by SJMHK, therefore profit of 20% attributed by the AO cannot be sustained. The Tribunal further held that the management fee received by the Indian Brnach of SJMHK were related to the service profit by the branch to both SJMI & SJMHK and is at Arm's Length and has been accepted by the TPO. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition made on this count. The appeal preferred by the Revenue was dismissed following the order dated. 5.6.2013 for assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. 6. With the above factual matrix in the present appeal the assessee has prayed to follow the order of the Tribunal dt. 13.5.2014 read with Miscell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... those proceedings, the factum of management fee has dealt with extensively and in the process, the TPO found the receipt of management fee by the India Branch from SJMH related to services provided to both SJMI & SJMH. It is evident from the accounts submitted before the AO, because in the Profit & Loss account submitted, it showed the receipt of Rs. 9,60,57,310/- which included Rs. 79,20,240/- under the head management fee for marketing support at Rs. 79,20,240/- (APB 7 & 12). 43. The AR further pointed out that the loss as determined and taken to the computation was returned in the return of income filed by the assessee (APB 7, 22 & 21) 44. We, therefore, are of the opinion, that all the requisite details were placed be....