TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 312
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n law in computing the income of the appellant for the relevant assessment year at Rs. 377,12,21,153 as against 'Nil' income returned by the appellant. 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in alleging that the appellant avoided furnishing specific information called for in the assessment, particularly the various agreements with the airlines. Re: Invalid Document Identification Number ("DIN") by the DRP Directions 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP Directions along with its Intimation letter dated 29.09.2023, passed by quoting an invalid DIN in the order which is non-est and bad in law. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... constitute dependent agent permanent establishment (PE) of the appellant in India and the income arising to the appellant from the airlines was attributable to the alleged PE in India. 5.4. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in alleging that the appellant was not making any payment to AIPL towards the activities of marketing the appellant's CRS and providing the hardware support to the travel agent and therefore, the distribution fee paid to AIPL was not at arm's length and consequently, AIPL constituted dependent agent PE of the appellant. 5.5. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in alleging that the appellant exercised control over the subscribers/ travel agents through AIPL. 5.6. That the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06 wherein the court has upheld the order of the High Court on the aspect that 15% of the revenue earned by the appellant is taxable in India and since the appellant pays 33% of the booking fees to the distributors, no income is attributable to tax in India and accordingly, 'Nil' return filed by the appellant has duly been accepted by the Supreme Court. 6.2. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in following the order for assessment year 2007-08 to allege that no remuneration was paid by the appellant to AIPL for main activity of marketing the CRS and providing the hardware support to travel agents and, therefore, profits from such functions were required to be attributed to the appellant's dependent agency....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g that allocation of cost, particularly marketing costs, on the basis of number of bookings generated will always result in over allocation of cost to a fully grown up market like India and consequently, erred in not accepting the cost allocation method adopted by the appellant. 10.2 That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in alleging that the aforesaid expenses were in the nature of 'head office' expenses and allowed deduction @5% of adjusted income under section 44C of the Act. Re: CRS income - Royalty 11. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in, alternatively, holding that booking fee of Euro 11,616,000/- received by the appellant was taxable in India as 'royalty' both under section 9(1)(vi) o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Altea System were not sourced in India in terms of Article 13(6) of the Treaty, therefore, were not liable to tax in India as 'royalty'. 16. Further without prejudice, the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding on adhoc basis a sum of Euro 43.88 million as the income of the appellant liable to tax in India as 'royalty' for the alleged use of Altea system by various airlines, without affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Re: Charge of interest 17. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in levying interest of Rs. 7,30,88,005 under section 234A of the Act. 18. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law i....