2018 (5) TMI 1844

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ented on behalf of the Assessee, and Mr.Srinivasa Rao represented on behalf of the Revenue. 3. The assessee has raised substantial grounds, which are subsequently revised, and concise grounds filed which are as follows:- "1. For that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) "CIT (A)" is contrary to the Law, facts and circumstances of the case and is opposed to the principal of equity, natural justice and fair play. 2. The CIT(A) erred in not considering that the foreign entity was an educational institution and the payments made to it by the Applicant is exempt as there is no make available made under Article 13 clause 4(c) and 5(c) of the DTAA between India and the UK "DTAA" 3. The CIT (A) further....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ervices Rs. 1,82,89,061/- and Blastline Institute of Surface Preparation and Paining Rs. 19,50,526/- without appreciating that this was revenue sharing arrangements where two contracting parties act on principal to principal basis and no TDS u/s 194H would arise. 10. Without prejudice to the above, the CLT(A) erred in considering that Sec 201 is not retrospective section and is not applicable on the Appellant as there are case laws stating that it is curative in nature and can be considered retrospectively. Further, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entities had offered the amount received from the appellant for tax and has filed return of income for the AY: 2012- 13. Therefore cannot be held as assessee In default as per se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....letter, it was clearly mentioned that eleven (11) lecturers had provided training in India and the details of the country of origin was also specified. It was a submission that total number of days stayed by the said eleven trainers in India were 127 days as has been specified by the ld. Assessing Officer in his assessment order in para 2.1. It was a submission that 127 days was in relation to the eleven trainers, who had been deputed by M/s. TWI UK at the behest of the assessee. It was a submission that none of the trainers stayed in India for more than 90 days. It was a further submission that on the ground that the trainers from M/s.TWI, UK was in India for more than 90 days, more specifically 127 days cumulatively, the ld. Assessing Off....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wever, the exact number of days has not been produced by the ld.A.R to establish that the number of days each specific trainer has been in India. Further, perusal of the agreement between the assessee and its parent organization has also not been placed before us to know whether any technical services have actually been provided and whether the same has passed 'Make Available Test". This being so, in the interest of justice, this issue is restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for readjudication. The assessee shall be at liberty to prove before the ld. Assessing Officer that the days the trainers were in India were less than 90 days and that what has been provided is not fees for technical services. Consequently, grounds Nos.2 to 8 o....