2018 (5) TMI 2077

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....filed its return of income on 27/11/2012,declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice was issued on 06/08/2013 u/s.143(2) of the Act. Subsequently notice u/s. 142(1) was issued on 19/02/2014 and 24/12/2014 . The assessment was completed on 28/01/2016,determining its income at Rs. 3.94 crores ,u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act. 2. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that during the year under consideration, the assessee had received fees of USD 886,000 for providing various consulting services under agreements with various Indian entities, the break-up of which is as follows: SN. Indian entity to whom services rendered Details of Agreements Net Fees received in $ 1 Voc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issions. We are of the view that the consideration received by the assessee can neither be said to be royalty not FIS. The payment in question was purely for the purpose of advising, recommending and assisting in relation to healthcare projects. It was also for conducting education and training programmes. It was also for the purpose of review and giving feed back of various aspects and new cardiac hospital to be set up, recommendation on planned patient care delivery system. In page 15A to 15D of the CIT(A)'s order a summary of the activities undertaken by the assessee for WHL. have been given. A perusal of the same shows that the consideration received by the assessee cannot be said to be royalty as they were not a payment for use of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lating to A. Y2003-04 and C.O No, 146/Ml07 is a cross objection by the assessee against the very same order of the CIT(A). The ground raised by the revenue in its appeal and Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee in its Cross Objection are identical to the Grounds 1 & 2 raised by the revenue in its appeal ITA 1558/M/07 and Ground No. 1 to 3 in the Cross Objection No. 145/M/07 raised by the assessee in this Cross Objection forA.Y2002-03. For the reasons given while deciding identical grounds in A. Y 2002-03, we dismiss the grounds raised by the revenue and allow Ground N0.1 to 3 raised by the assessee in its Cross Objection. 'Both the parties agreed that the facts and circumstances prevailing in both the A.Ys are identical. Ground No.4....