TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1971
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Income Tax Act pursuant to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, [in short referred to as DRP] u/s 144C(5) dated 21/10/2016. The ground raised by the assessee read as under: - 1. Re.: Treating salary and other related costs reimbursed by OWENS-CORNING (India) Pvt. Ltd. [OCIL] to the appellant as Fees for Technical Services: 1.1 The Dispute Resolution Panel / Assessing officer has erred in taxing the amount of Rs.1,49,96,676/- received by the Appellant during the year under consideration as reimbursement of the salary and other related costs as 'fees for technical services' in terms of section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as under Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufacturer of glass). The assessment was framed for impugned AY vide final assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) on 21/11/2016 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.149.96 Lacs as against Nil return e-filed by the assessee on 26/11/2013. 2.2 The sole addition of Rs.149.96 Lacs stem from the fact that the assessee, during the year, was in receipt of aggregate sum of Rs.149.96 Lacs as reimbursement of salary expenditure & related costs from group entity namely M/s Owens Corning India Pvt. Ltd. The said reimbursement, in the opinion of Ld. AO, fall within the meaning of Fees for technical Services [FTS] and taxable in the hands of the assessee. In defense, the assessee submitted that in terms of Article 12(4) of I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payment as FTS, directed Ld. AO to apply correct rate of tax as per statutory provisions. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, final assessment order was passed by Ld. AO on 27/11/2016 determining income at Rs.149.96 Lacs, being taxable @10%. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Sr. Counsel for Assessee [AR], at the outset, drew attention to the fact that Ld. AO proceeded on wrong assumption of facts since the payment was in relation to an employee namely Mr. Anindya Ghosh who rendered managerial service as against the observation of Ld. AO, at para 6.4 & 6.5 of the final assessment order that the services were rendered by Mr. Anil Gupta who was a qualified engineer. To support the said submissions, our atte....