2023 (2) TMI 851

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. There are stay application Nos. 358 & 359/Del/2022, in ITA No. 1872 & 1873/Del/2022 for Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant before this Tribunal is John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and the successor in interest of the assessee M/s. Wiley Subscription Services Inc, which had filed its return of income declaring Nil income. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny. The dispute was with regard to receipts from Indian customers for sale of online journals and subscription license which the assessee company had claimed to be of subscription and not royalties FTS/ FIS as alleged by the revenue authorities. 4. Draft order was passed on 29.09.2021 mentioning that the assessee to be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aining WB Journals publication and distribution of WB Journals, online books, online research works etc. do not qualify as Royalties or FTS/FIS under the Act as well as under India-USA DTAA and are accordingly not taxable in India." 7. At the time of hearing on behalf of the appellant it was submitted the ld AO had passed the final order without complying with the directions of ld. DRP and the in the name of a non-existing entity. It was submitted that during the assessment proceedings the ld AO was specifically informed of all the facts that the assessee M/s. Wiley Subscription Services Inc has merged with M/s. John Wiley and Sons Inc and the copy of merger document was also submitted. Inspite of these facts being there with the ld AO has....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CIT Vs. Spice Enfotainment limited Civil Appeal 285 of 2014 (SC) xvi. Dhingra Jardina Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Haryana and others CWP 20788 OF 2015 (Punjab and Haryana High Court) xvii. CIT Vs. Dimensions Appareals Pvt. Ltd [2015] 370 ITR 288 (Delhi High Court) xviii. PCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, [2017] 397 ITR 681 (Delhi High Court) High xix. CIT Vs. Miera India Pvt. Ltd., ITA 441 of 2013 (Delhi Court) xx. Flextronics Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [IT(TP)A No. 832/Bang/2017) xxi. Ebro India Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT [S.A. No. 158/Del/2022] xxii. Biocon Biologics Ltd. v. DCIT [IT(TP)A No. 299/Bang/2022] xxiii. Marlabs Innovations (P.) Ltd v. DCIT [2022] 196 ITD 179 (Bangalore- Trib.) 8. The ld DR how....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....upreme Court judgment in cased of Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC) are worth mentioning wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "33 In the present case, despite the fact that the assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was issued only in its name. The basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. Participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law. This position now holds the field in view o....