TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was filed on 29-01-2021 against the final assessment order dated 01-06-2020, thereby causing delay of 166 days. Here it is pertinent to note that as per the Gazette of India dated 29-09-2020 providing relaxation of limitation in the specified Acts, it has been stated that where, any time-limit has been specified under the specified Act, which falls within the period from 20th day of March, 2020 to 31st day of December, 2020, or as further extended, the limitation shall stand extended up to 31st March, 2021 or as further directed by the Central Government. Thus, it is apparent that the case of the assessee is fully covered under the relaxation of the limitation provided under the Gazette of India. The delay is accordingly condoned and the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....overed within Article 12 of the DTAA and hence chargeable to tax in India. The AO further held that the services rendered by the assessee constituted Royalty and FTS u/ss. 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Act. In reaching this conclusion, he relied on the direction given by the DRP in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2016-17. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) did not provide any reprieve to the assessee, which led to the treatment of Rs. 31,29,96,084/- from SAPL; Rs. 3,00,40,632/- from Walter Tools India Pvt. Ltd.; Rs. 34,17,749/- from Seco Tools India Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 28,60,882/- from Dormer Tools India Pvt. Ltd., as FTS covered under Article 12 of the DTAA. The assessee has approached the Tribunal against such inclusion. 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to taxability or otherwise of such a sum came up for consideration before the Tribunal for the assessment year 2016-17. Vide order dated 25-11-2020, the Tribunal in ITA No. 1310/PUN/2019 has held that the amount received by the assessee from SAPL is not chargeable to tax under Article 12 of the DTAA even though the same is in the nature of FTS covered u/s. 9(1)(vi) of the Act. To buttress its view, the Tribunal took into consideration its orders for the earlier assessment years 2009-10 and 2012-13 holding similarly. As the authorities below have relied on their respective views taken in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2016-17, which has been overturned by the Tribunal, respectfully following the precedent, we hold that t....