TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (6) TMI 849
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 22-09- 2006 of the CIT(A)-XXXIII, Mumbai, relating to asst. year 2003-04. 2. The effective ground raised by the Revenue is as under : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition ofRs.5,12,12,759/- made under the head 'Fees for included services' under Artic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Y. 97-98 and ITA.No.2068/M/03 for A.Y. 98- 99 all dated 26/04/2006 after a detailed discussions has held that payments in question cannot be treated as 'fees for included services'. The decision of the said order at page No.12 in para-5 is extracted below: "This division bench has carefully gone through the above order and has also duly considered rival contentions as also material on record. Ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the monies received by appellant companies from McKinsey India constitute 'fees for included services' within the meaning of Article 12(4) of the India US Treaty and are accordingly liable to be taxed in India. In my view, the payments in question, for the detailed reasons set out above, cannot be treated as 'fees for included services'. Since, the appellant companies do not have any permanent....