Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2018 (8) TMI 441

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s general in nature and ground No. 6 pertaining to interest u/s. 234B is consequential in nature. The assessee has also filed an application on 30.07.2018 (Wrong date written on application as August 30, 2018) before the bench stating that the appellant has entered into an Advance pricing agreement (APA) with CBDT on 25.07.2018 (wrong date written in application as August 25, 2018) which is applicable to five consecutive years commencing from F.Y. 2014-15 to 2018- 19 and four consecutive rollback years commencing from F.Y. 2010-11 to 2013-14 relevant to A.Yrs. 2011-12 to 2014-15. It is also stated that the appellant is entitled to file modified return as per section 92CD(1) in accordance with the APA within a period of three months from the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ees and recharacterizing such payments as FTS. 4.3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP have erred in incorrectly placing reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Centrica India Offshore Pvt Ltd vs CIT [2014] 364ITR 336 ("Centrica"), holding that the AE was rendering technical services to the Appellant which are chargeable to tax in India in the hands of the AE. Disallowance under section 37(1) of the Act. 4.4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP directions are bad in law, to the extent of enhancement of income in relation to disallowance of expenditure amounting to made amounting to INR 3,68,01,315, as no show-cause or opportunity of being ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Companies Act, 1956 and operates as a wholly owned subsidiary of Daikin industries Limited, Japan ("DIL"). During the subject assessment year, the Appellant was engaged in the following activities: * Purchase of air conditioners ('ACs') and other products from its associated enterprises ("AEs") for the purpose of resale in India, which are imported on a principle to principle basis; * Provision of after-sales services of air conditioners and other related activities; and * Manufacturing of air-conditioners for the purpose of selling to third party customers in India. The Appellant had set-up a factory in Rajasthan in February, 2008 for manufacturing of air conditioners and started manufacturing operations in September, 200....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the DRP, certain additional details / information were sought by the Panel in relation to international transaction of reimbursement of expenses, in order to ascertain the withholding tax liability of the Appellant on such remittances. The breakup of reimbursement of expenses as provided to the DRP is as under: Particulars Amount (in INR) Salaries 8,09,97,689 Consultancy expenses 3,68,01,315 Travel Costs 51,74,359 Total reimbursement by Appellant 12,29,73,363 3.4 Thereafter, the DRP suo-moto directed for the following additions / disallowances: - In relation to expenditure incurred towards (i.) salaries and (ii.) travel cost, the DRP held that the same constitutes Fee for Technical Services ("FTS"), chargeable to tax in India ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erifying the documents submitted, upheld it as payment for FTS. He also submitted that the similar payments made by assessee in A.Y. 2010-11, 2012-13 to 2014-15 have been accepted by the Revenue. He requested that the mater should go back to the Assessing Officer for verification to ascertain the exact nature of payments to the employees. 5. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and stated that the matter may be remanded to A.O. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the entire material on record. The ld. AR of the assessee drew our attention to copies of Form No. 16 and details of the employees placed in the paper book, which have not been examined by the authorities below. We, therefore, think it proper to send t....