TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 312
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in 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. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt in India. 5.3. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in alleging that Amadeus India 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appreciating that the issue of attribution of profits to PE has been decided by Supreme Court in favor of the appellant for Assessment Years 1996-97 to 2005-06 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 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncurred specifically for the Indian distribution activity and the justification of incurring such expenditure. 10.1 That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding 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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yalty' both under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 13(3) of the Treaty. 15. That without prejudice, the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the payments received from various airlines in relation to the 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eting costs incurred for earning revenue from bookings made from India. It may be pertinent to note that similar expenditure has been allowed deduction since inception, i.e., assessment years 199697 to 2006-07 and in view of there being no change in facts or law, no disallowance is warranted in the present year, too. The aforesaid position has been upheld by the Tribunal in appellant's own case for assessment years 2007-08 to 2020-21. This issue has attained finality since revenue has accepted the said aforesaid findings of Tribunal. Respectfully following the earlier orders of the Tribunal, the addition is directed to be deleted. 7. CRS Income-Royalty - This issue is intra-polated on the issue of PE and attribution of profits as d....