TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 646
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 28.11.2022 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "ld. AO"). 2. Identical issues are involved in all these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. The only identical issue to be decided in this appeal as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in holding the receipt of the assessee as business income instead of fee for technical services (FTS) as held by the ld AO in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee company is a body co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l No. Particulars Amount 1. Reliance Industries Ltd 64,08,000/- 2. Gail India Ltd 7,41,76,654/- 3. Indraprastha Gas Ltd 92,51,673/- Total 8,98,36,327/- 7. The assessee submitted that the aforesaid receipts are taxable in home country i.e. Singapore and accordingly had declared Nil Income in its Indian Tax Return and claimed the refund of Rs.90,70,600/-. The assessee also submitted that the receipts from the aforesaid 3 parties does not fall under the definition of "fee for technical services" (FTS) and assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the entire receipts are taxable only in Singapore and not in India. The assessee also submitted that as per Article 12(4)(b) o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax resident of Singapore within the meaning of Article 4 of India- Singapore treaty and accordingly, the receipts earned by the assessee were taxed as "other income" as per Article 23 of DTAA. The assessee filed rejoinder to the remand report before the ld CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) observed that one of the main reasons for the conclusion drawn by the ld AO was non-compliance of the notice by the assessee, which prompted the ld AO to tax the receipts based on figures reflected in Form 26AS without ascertaining the nature of receipts thereon. The ld CIT(A) also observed that assessee had duly furnished Form 15CA and 15CB before the ld AO which establishes the nature of receipts. This was not verified by the ld AO, but the ld CIT(A) observed tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A). 9. The ld DR before us could not controvert the aforesaid factual findings recorded by the ld CIT(A). Further, he placed reliance on Section 90(1)(b) of the Act which was introduced in the statute from 01.04.2021 stating that assessee in the instant case had engaged in treaty shopping arrangements. We find that this was never the case of the ld AO. The law is very well settled that the ld DR cannot improve the case of the revenue before the Tribunal by stating new facts or new allegations. Hence the reliance placed by the ld DR on section 90 (1)(b) of the Act would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case. Further, we find that the said provision is applicable only from assessment year 2021-22 onwards and cannot be made appli....