TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 664
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re of IT support services (FTS). Ground No.20 - Interest under section 234A of the Act. Ground No.21 - Interest u/s. 234B of the Act. Ground No.22 - Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 270 of the Act. 3. Shri Rajesh Poojari appearing on behalf of the assessee submits at the outset that the facts in the present appeal are identical to the facts in appeal by the assessee in ITA No.5998/Mum/2019 for Assessment Year 2016-17 decided by the Tribunal on 02/09/2022. Even in the subsequent Assessment Years i.e. Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19, the Tribunal in ITA No.1031/Mum/2021 decided on 03/11/2022 and ITA No.1820/Mum/2022 decided on 16/01/2023 has decided similar grounds of appeal taking consistent view. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in present appeal are squarely covered by the decisions of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for the preceding Assessment Years. 4. Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. However, he fairly admitted that grounds similar to the grounds raised by the assessee in instant appeal have been considered by the Tribunal in assessee's own case in the preceding Assessment Years.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....overed under Article-9 of the Tax Treaty. However, subsequently, while deciding the identical issue in assessee's own case for the assessment years 2013- 14 and 2014-15, learned DRP took a contrary view and decided the issue against the assessee. When the appeals preferred by the Revenue and the assessee for the aforesaid assessment years came up for consideration before the Tribunal, the Tribunal in ITA no.6649/ Mum./2017 & Ors., dated 14th March 2018, decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding as under:- "15. We have heard rival contentions on this issue and perused the record. We notice that the ld DRP has mainly declined to follow its own order passed in AY 2012-13 in the subsequent two years for the reason that there is difference between Article 8 of India-Belgium DTAA and Article 9 of India-France DTAA. According to Ld DRP that the India-Belgium DTAA contains specific provisions to include "any other activity directly connected with such transportation", whereas the same is absent in the India France DTAA. The Ld A.R, on the contrary, submitted that the presence or absence of the above said provision will not make any difference. In support of this proposition, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f India-Denmark DTAA clearly shows that the ancillary activities connected with the shipping business are also included in the shipping business. The above said decision has been followed by the co-ordinate bench in the case of same assessee, viz., A.P.Moller Maersk A/S (ITA No.1798/Mum/2015 dated 15-02- 2017) for AY 2011- 12 to hold that the Inland Haulage charges received by that assessee shall also form part of shipping income from international traffic. The decision so rendered for AY 2011-12 was followed by the coordinate bench in the above said assessee's case in AY 2012-13 in ITA No.1743/Mum/2016 dated 07-02-2018. 20. Before us, the ld A.R demonstrated that the Article 9 of India France DTAA and Article 9 of India-Denmark DTAA are identically worded. Since the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Safmarine Containers Lines N.V (which was rendered in the context of India-Belgium DTAA) was held to be applicable to India- Denmark DTAA also by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of A.P.Moller Maersk A/S (ITA No.1306 of 2013), the ld A.R submitted that the absence of the expression "any other activity directly connected with such transportation" i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see earned freight income of Rs. 14,96,75,976/-. The assessee invoked treaty provisions and claimed that the said amount is not subject to tax in India. The Assessing Officer held that the said receipts are taxable in India u/s. 44B of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of 7.5% of the total receipts i.e. Rs. 1,12,25,698/-. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.5998/Mum/2019 has decided this issue as under: "8. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer and DRP have erred in holding that freight charges for transportation of cargo through feeder vessels is income taxable in the hands of assessee under section 44B of the Act. The transportation of cargo through feeder vessels is inextricably linked to the international transportation of cargo. Therefore, freight charges for transportation of cargo through feeder vessels are covered by Article -9 of India-France DTAA. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that the issue is squarely covered by the order of Tribunal for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15 and the order for assessment year 2015-16. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee raised a plea that such income is not chargeable to tax in India, hence, the assessee be allowed refund of the tax paid on said income. Since, the claim was not made by way of return of income /revised return of income the Assessing Officer rejected the claim made during assessment proceedings in the light of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323(SC). The assessee raised an objection before the DRP. The DRP following its own decision in assessment year 2017-18 dismissed the objection of assessee. In assessment year 2017-18 the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 03/11/2022 in ITA NO.1013/Mum/2021 admitted the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in respect of non-taxability of income in the nature of I.T. Support Services and restored the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer with following observations: "29. As per the assessee, for the year under consideration, it had earned income in the nature of IT support services amounting to Rs. 8,29,29,430 from its Indian agency company, which was inadvertently offered to tax at the rate of 10% plus surcharge and education cess in the return of income filed for the year under consideration. However, subsequent....