TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1346
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ian Organistation. A Contract dated July 20. 1998 was signed between the assessee and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited ("NPCIL") for the preparation of a Detailed Project Report ("DPR") for setting up a nuclear power stations ("NPS") in India at various locations. NPCIL is a limited company, incorporated on September 3. 1987 and is a wholly owned Government of India enterprise. NPCIL on incorporation look over various nuclear power projects and existing power stations situated at different places across the country from the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. Amongst the other places. NPCIL is in the process of setting up nuclear power station at Kudiinkulam, Tamil Nadu. For this purpose, the Republic of India and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the rate of 10%. 4. By the impugned order, CIT(A) accepted assessee's claim. However, he has upheld reopening of assessment. 5. Both assessee and revenue are in further appeal before us against the order of CIT(A). 6. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the assessee is aggrieved for validity of reopening u/s. 147 of the IT Act. However, Revenue is in appeal before us for deleting the addition made by AO holding that provisions u/s. 44BBB are applicable to the payment received by the assessee from Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. , 7. At the outset, learned AR placed on record, the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case wherein similar addition made by the AO which was deleted by the CIT(A) had been affirmed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e issue in dispute in these grounds is in relation to taxability of the amount received towards supply of materials and equipment under the off-shore supply contracts. Undisputedly, the off-shore supply contracts under which the assessee has supplied materials and equipments in the impugned assessment year is/are continuing from the assessment year 2006-07 onwards. It is relevant to note, the taxability of the amount received under the off-shore contract is a contentious issue between the assessee and the Department right from the assessment year 2006-07. In fact, in the impugned assessment year, the Assessing Officer following the order of the RP for assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08, has brought to tax the amount received under off-shor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of business receipts for computation of income u/s. 44 BBB of the Act. We held so. " 4. 1. In the case of NPCIL (supra) the Tribunal has held that provisions of section 44BBB would be applicable for the project executed by the assessee . Respectfully following the above we hold that the assessee cannot be taxed as per the provisions of section 9 of the Act, that it is covered by the section 44 BBB of the Act. Confirming the order of the FAA we decide the effective Ground of appeal against the AO. As a result appeal filed by the AO stands dismissed" 9. As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are parameteria, following the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case, we do not find any infirmity in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of royalties and in pursuance to the contract for deputation of specialists and offshore training contract are in the nature of fees for technical services. Notice u/s. 148 is dt. 9. 3. 2009 and the appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A) for A. Y. 2005-06 is dt. 13. 1. 2009 which means that the very basis for reopening the assessment was struck down by the Ld. CIT(A) on 13. 1. 2009 which order was very much available to the AO when he recorded his reasons for reopening the assessment . The assessment order of AY 2005 -06 stood merged with the order of the CIT[A]. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the very reasons for reopening the assessment did not survive by virtue of the findings of the First appellate authorities which were binding upon the AO. In our considered opinion, the AO has grossly erred in reopening the assessment and the DRP fell into the same error by confirming the same. Considering the facts in totality in the light of the judicial decisions discussed hereinabove, the assessment u/s. 147 persuant to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act is set aside. Ground No. 1 is accordingly allowed. " 12. From the record, we found that during the year under consideration, reopening was on the basis of assessment framed in the A. Y. 2005-06 dated 13/01/2009. Similarly in the A. Y. 2006-07 also on the very same reasoning, assessmen....