TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Year ("AY") 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 17 January, 2023 passed by the Assessing Officer ("AO") under section 143(3), r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") is erroneous and bad in law as well as in facts. 2. That the AO and the Ld. DRP on the facts and in law, have erred in holding that fee for freight/ logistic support services amounting to INR 5,56,94,82,042 received by the Appellant, for services rendered outside India, is in the nature of Fee for Technical Services/Fee for Included Services ("FTS'/ "FIS") as per the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12 of the Ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vices worldwide. It carries out operations in three primary segments, namely airfreight, ocean freight and ocean services, customs brokerage and import services. The nature of services primarily includes consolidation or forwarding of air and ocean freight. Additionally, these services include distribution management, vendor consolidation, cargo insurance, purchase order management, customised logistics information. These operations are rendered by the assessee from outside India. For AY 2020-21 the assessee filed its return of income on 06.01.2021 declaring income of Rs. 88,21,26,490/-. 3.1 The Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") in his draft assessment order assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 6,51,79,62,840/- as against the income of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... legal position relating to the disputed issues presently under consideration in AY 2020-21. The Ld. DR fairly conceded to the submission of the Ld. AR. 6. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the material on record. The Revenue has not disputed the fact that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal for the preceding AY(s) have decided the issues raised in AY 2020-21 in favour of the assessee. We have gone through the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench for AY 2010-11 (at page 356 to 377 of the Paper Book Volume II); for AY 2011-12 (at page 382 to 384 of the Paper Book Volume II); for AY 2012-13 to 2015-16 and 2017-18 (at page 390 to 392 of the Paper Book Volume II) and for AY 2018-19 (at page 410 to 411 of the Paper Boo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en. There being no change either in the factual or legal position relating to the disputed issue in the impugned assessment year, respectfully following the consistent view of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in the preceding assessment years, as mentioned above, we delete the addition made by the assessing officer. This ground is allowed." 6.2 With respect to ground No. 3 relating to the addition of Rs. 5,80,64,686/- made by the Ld. AO representing reimbursement of global account management charges received by the assessee treating the same as FTS under the Act as well as India-USA DTAA, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in its decision dated 31.10.2022 in ITA No. 1464/Del/2022 for AY 2018-19 observed and held as under:- "10. Havi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... towards lease line charges at the hands of assessee's payer, the assessing officer had held that the payment made is in the nature of royalty, hence, the assessee was required to deduct tax at source. Since, the assessee has not done so, the assessing officer made disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. However, while deciding the issue in case of the payer, the Hon'ble High Court held that the payment made, being not in the nature of royalty, no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act can be made. Thus, in view of the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in case of the payer, the addition made cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we delete it. This ground is allowed....