TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1056
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 23/01/2024 for Assessment Year 2011-12. The Appeals are clubbed and heard together. For the sake of convenience the brief facts for Assessment Year 2010-11 as mentioned in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) are taken into consideration, which reads as under:- "The Appellant is a limited company incorporated in Korea and is a non resident for the purpose of Income Tax Act 1961 [the Act]. The return of income for AY 2010-11 was filed on 15.10.2010 declaring a total income of Rs. 4410820. For the impugned year the assessment us 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act was completed on 23.01.201 5 assessing the total income at Rs. 16,01,14,878. Against the said assessment order the Appellant preferred an appeal befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the findings of the Assessing Officer that the Assessee's office situated in Mumbai was not simply a liaison office, but it accepted orders on behalf of Company and executed work like pre bid survey on behalf of the Company. It was also not the case that it was just a communication channel. The Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the above facts have not been properly considered by the Ld. CIT(A) in deciding the issue in favour of the Assessee, thus sought for allowing Ground No. 1 & 2 of the Revenue. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that the issues as to whether Mumbai office of the Assessee is a Permanent Establishment or not has been ongoin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4,09,037/- made by the Assessing Officer, being the amount received by the Assessee during the year as FTS from various projects. 10. The Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that the said ground is not emanating from the order of the Ld. CIT (A),the averments of Ground No. 3 is which is factually erroneous. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the Ground No. 3. 11. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative relying on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) sought for allowing the Ground No.3. 12. We have verified the record and found that the Ground No. 3 is not emanating from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) accordingly, the Ground No. 3 of the Revenue being mis-conceived is hereby dismissed. 13. Further, it is found that after ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of Rs. 11,33,95,070/- made by the A.O. being the amount received by the Assessee during the year as FTS from various projects. The Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the findings of the A.O. that the Assessee has considered the second part of sub article 3(b) of Article 12 of India Korea DTAA, and has ignored first part of this treaty. Thus, sought for allowing the Ground No. 2 of the Revenue. 17. Per contra, the Ld. Assessee's Representative relying on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), submitted that the Assessee entered into the contract with the parties which is undisputedly involved with off-shore supply and off-shore services/supply. Further submitted that the contracts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view of the above, in the absence of any contrary judicial precedents, we find no reason to interfere with the findings and the conclusion of the Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, Ground No. 2 of the Revenue is dismissed. 20. In Ground No. 3, the Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering the Assessee's interest income from its AE, on delayed payment without appreciating the findings of the A.O. that there is no denying fact that the interest earned by the Assessee arises to its AE through its PE and hence is clearly covered under para 5 of Article 12 of DTAA. The Department's Representative relying on the assessment orders, sought for allowing the Ground No. 3 of the Revenue. 21. Per contra, the Ld. AR relying on the f....