TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 1341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that ITAT has already heard the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 1997-98 and 1998-99 wherein identical issues are involved. The learned DR was unable to controvert the contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee: 3. With the assistance of learned representatives, we have gone through the records carefully. We find that the grounds of appeals taken by the assessee as well as revenue in all the assessment years of their respective appeals are verbatim same. For the facility of reference, we are taking cognizance of the assessee's grounds of appeal in ITA No.2311/Del/08 in assessment year 1999-00 which read as under: "1. That on the facts and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in India. 4. Without prejudice to grounds 1 and 2 above, the CIT(Appeals) has erred, on the facts and in the circumstances and in law, in concluding that out of the total net profit earned by the appellant from CRS business from India, 25% of profit is attributable to the business activities carried on by the PEs in India. 4.1 Without prejudice to Grounds 1 and 2 above, the CIT(Appeals) has erred in ignoring prescribed attribution Rule 10(ii) (based on global profitability), which would be the correct method of determine income to be attributable to the Appellant in India. 5. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Appellant submits that the CIT(Appeals) has erred, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, in either ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt does not constitute PE in India under the provisions of Article 5(1) of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and USA; 2. The learned DDIT erred in considering the entire income related to the bookings originating in India as chargeable to tax in India; 3. The learned DDIT erred in rejecting the audited statements with regard to bookings fee received from Jet Airways by assuming the same to be 60% of the total global booking fees paid by Jet Airways to the appellant. 4. The DDIT further erred in estimating that 60% of the total global booking fees paid by Jet Airways to the appellant as pertaining to bookings originating from India without according any opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 5. The le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onnection in India it has been held by the ITAT that 15% of the revenue accrued to the assessee in respect of the booking made in India that should be treated as income accrued or assessed in India. The facts noticed by the ITAT and the findings recorded on the dispute in assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 in ITA No.1215 & 1216/Del/05 & Ors. read as under: "5. In respect of question no.1, the Tribunal held that income was chargeable to tax under section 5(2) of the Act as the assessee had business connection in India as per section 9(1)(i) of the Act. It however held that 15% of the revenue accrued to the assessee in respect of the bookings made in India that should be treated as income accrued or assessed in India and since the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e extent of working in India is only to the extent of channelizing the request and receiving the result of the process in India and the major functioning and collected the data base of various airlines and hotels which have entered into PCA with the assessee takes place outside India. The Tribunal also took into consideration the fact that the computer of Denver at USA processes various data like schedule of flights, timinings, pricing, the availability, connection, meal preference, special facility, etc, and that too on the basis of neutral display real time on line takes place outside India. In so far as the role played in India is concerned, that is limited to the computers at the desk which are merely connected or configured to the exte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....capacity which processes information of all the participants is situated outside India. The CRS as a whole is developed and maintained outside India. The risk in this regard entirely rests with the appellant and mat is in USA, outside India. However, it is equally important to note that but for the presence of the assessee in India and the configuration and connectivity being provided in India, the income would not have generated. Thus the initial cause of generation of income is in India also. On the basis of above facts we can reasonably attribute 15% of the revenue accruing to the assessee in respect of bookings made in India as income accruing or arising in India and chargeable under Section 5(2) read with Section 9(1)(i) of the Act" ....