TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1043
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in upholding the assessment of fees received by the assessee from its Indian AE as business income of the assessee. 2. Facts relating to the issue are stated in brief. The assessee-company belongs to Booz group. It is engaged in the business of providing management and technical consultancy services. It is incorporated in United Arab Emirates (UAE). During the year under consideration the assessee provided technical/professional personnel to its Indian associated enterprise named Booz & Company India Private Limited (Booz India). The assessee received a fee of Rs. 112.83 lakhs from Booz India. The assessee did not offer the same for taxation. The assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pporting documents, the Assessing Officer restricted deduction for expenses to the tune of Rs. 40 lakhs. Accordingly, he determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 72.83 lakhs. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the same and hence the assessee has filed the appeal before us. 4. The Ld A.R submitted that the tax authorities have mainly placed reliance on the ruling given by AAR in respect of certain group companies. He submitted that the question of availability of PE has to be examined on the basis of facts available in the present case and hence the tax authorities are not correct in merely placing reliance on the ruling of AAR without examining the facts available in the present case. He further submitted that the ruling given b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l personnel of the assessee. Further Booz India is not under an obligation to earmark or provide a dedicated office or any other space to the personnel of the assessee. Accordingly he submitted that there is no fixed place of business in India through which the business of assessee was carried on in India. Accordingly he submitted that none of the conditions prescribed in Article 5 of the India-UAE treaty on PE shall be applicable to the assessee herein. In this regard, the Ld A.R placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E-Funds IT Solutions Inc. (Civil Appeal No.6082 of 2015 dated 24-10-2017). 7. He also submitted that the employees of the assessee has worked for only 156 solar days only and hence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tivities continue for the same project or connected project for a period or periods aggregating more than 9 months within any twelve month period." The assessee has given working of mandays of employees provided by the assessee to M/z Booz India at page 53 of the paper book. As per the said working the employees have worked for an aggregate period of 156 solar days (on all projects taken together), meaning thereby, the period of working is less than 9 months. Hence the above said clause shall not apply. 11. The assessee has also stated that it does not have any fixed place of PE and also shown M/s Booz India has also not earmarked any specific place under the control or disposal of the assessee. Hence it cannot be said that the assess....