2021 (7) TMI 1450

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-13, Pune ["CIT(A)"] for assessment year 2009-10. 2. Upon hearing, we note that the issues raised in appeal and cross objections are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to dispose off above said appeal and cross objections together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. First, we shall take up the appeal by the Revenue in ITA No. 502/PUN/2020 for the A.Y. 2009-10. 4. The Revenue raised 3 grounds amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act by holding that the expenses involved therein as reimbursement cost towards communication a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the payment made to BBPLC cannot be brought to tax in India under the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and UK and also Ireland. The payment made to BBPLC for the services rendered by the assessee is a consideration for IT support services and is not for the use of any intellectual property or any information. BBPLC does not impart any information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience to assessee (BSS). The said payment cannot be treated as Royalty under Article 13(3)(a) of the India-UK DTAA. Further, it was contended that the AO/TPO completely ignored the above said contentions made by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) considering the above said subm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the BSS to BBPLC cannot be classified as Royalty as the possession of equipment and the associated risk therein lies with BBPLC and the equipments are used by BBPLC itself for its international connectivity and arranging the same for BSS. It was also contended that the AO ignored the fact that the payment is not for the use of any intellectual property or any information, but for the IT support services. We note that the assessee made its contentions before the CIT(A) vide its submissions dated 07-06-2017 wherein the CIT(A) reproduced the relevant part of such submissions in his impugned order at Page No. 5 but however the CIT(A) did not discuss the same in detail while recording reasons for holding such payment cannot be considered as f....