TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1076
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by the assessee reads as under:- "The learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the claim of the appellant that the rate of tax applicable to domestic companies and/or co-operative banks for A.Y. 2012-13 is also applicable to the appellant in accordance with the provisions of Article-26 (Non-discrimination) of the India-France tax treaty." 3. As could be seen from the ground raised, it is the claim of the assessee that as per the non-discrimination clause contained in Article-26 of the India-France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), the rate of tax (including surcharge) applicable to domestic companies and Co-operative Societies should be applicable to the assessee. The Departmental Authorities have rejected the aforesa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee on the disputed issue. However, there being no material difference in the facts of the present case, respectfully following the consistent view of the Tribunal on the disputed issue in assessee's own case for the preceding assessment years, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. Ground raised is dismissed. 7. In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed. ITA no.1689/Mum./2018 Revenue's Appeal 8. In grounds no.1 and 2, the Revenue has challenged the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in holding that the amount received by the assessee from its Indian Branch towards data processing fee is not chargeable to tax in India due to principles of mutuality. 9. Brief facts are, in the cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal on the issue in the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Thus, he submitted, the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee. 12. The learned Departmental Representative agreed with the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee. 13. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the facts on record, the dispute between the parties relating to taxability of data processing fee at the hands of the assessee as royalty / fee for technical services is a recurring issue from the preceding assessment years. While deciding the issue in the year 2005-06 in assessee's own case the Tribunal in ITA no.33....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition of interest income made at the hands of the Head Office by the Assessing Officer. 15. Grounds no.5 and 6 are offshoots of the issue raised in grounds no.3 and 4. 16. Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee has received interest from its Indian Branches called upon the assessee to explain why the same should not be treated as income at the hands of the assessee. Though, the assessee through elaborate submissions objected to the proposed addition, however, the Assessing Officer rejecting the submissions of the assessee proceeded to tax the interest income at the hands of the assessee. 17. However, while deciding assessee's appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to be given full effect. Thus, he submitted, the earlier orders passed by the appellate authorities having ignored the provision of section 9(1)(v)(c) of the Act, they do not lay down the correct proposition of law. Further, he submitted, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue without considering the provision contained under Article-12(6) of the India France Tax Treaty. Thus, he submitted, the issue requires to be re-examined again. 20. In rejoinder, the learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee submitted, the applicability of section 9(1)(v)(c) of the Act was examined by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (supra). Hence, it is not correct on the part of the learned Departmental R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at as per the provision contained under section 9(1)(v)(c) of the Act interest income is taxable in India and the applicability of such provision has been ignored by the appellate authority, we must observe, this particular aspect relating to the applicability of section 9(1)(v)(c) of the Act was also under consideration of the Special Bench in case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (supra) and the Special Bench clearly and categorically held that since the interest payable by the Indian Branch to the Head Office is a payment to self, it cannot be brought to tax by relying upon the provision of section 9(1)(v)(c) of the Act. Therefore, insofar as the applicability of the aforesaid provision is concerned, it stands settled in favour of ....