TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1488
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Dispute Resolution Panel- 3, Mumbai, ("learned DRP"), for the assessment year 2022-23. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated 9 December 2024 passed by the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation) 3(2)(2), Mumbai ('the Ld. AO') under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is void-ab-initio, illegal and bad in law and is therefore, liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. DRP) erred in holding the amount for business support services o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pressed during the hearing. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 4. The issue arising in ground no. 2, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to taxability of income received by the assessee from rendering management support services as Fees for Technical Services ("FTS") under Article 12 of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA"). 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is a resident of Singapore and incorporated on 30/09/1998. The assessee is engaged in the business of providing executive search and recruitment services, and also provides management support services and referral services to the Page Group entities. For the year und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as made, assessed the income earned by the assessee from the rendition of management support services as FTS under section 9(1)(vii) read with Article 12(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA. 7. The assessee filed detailed objections against the addition made by the AO. Vide directions dated 27/11/2024, issued under section 144C(5) of the Act, the learned DRP, following its directions rendered in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2018-19 rejected the objections filed by the assessee, even after noting that identical issue in assessee's own case has been decided in its favour by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in preceding year, to keep the issue alive and to protect the interest of the Revenue. 8. In conformity with the direc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the services, by virtue of rendition of services by the assessee, is enabled to provide the same services without recourse to the service provider, the services cannot be said to have made available the recipient of services. A mere incidental advantage to the recipient of service is not enough. The test is the transfer of technology, but then it is not even the case of the revenue that there is a transfer of technology, and what is highlighted is the incidental benefit to the assessee, which is treated as an enduring advantage. As observed in the binding judicial precedents referred to above, in order to invoke "make available' clause, "to fit into the terminology "making available", the technical knowledge and skill must remain with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... academic. We leave it at that. 9. As regards the question regarding a change in the stand of the assessee and the facts of the assessee's offering the same income to tax in the immediately preceding assessment years, nothing really turns on the stand of the assessee in the immediately preceding assessment years. There is no res judicata in the income tax proceedings and the mere fact of an assessee's offering an income to tax in an earlier year can be a reason enough to negate his otherwise lawful claim of non-taxability. The matter in required to be examined on merits, and once we find it to be an acceptable claim on merits, such taxability in the immediately preceding assessment years cannot come in the way of the assess....