TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1382
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondent assessee did not receive any of the notice for hearing before the Tribunal alongwith the affidavit. After considering the application and verification of records and hearing both the parties, Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable and sufficient cause, due to which he was unable to appear on the date of hearing and thus the order dated 22.04.2022 was cancelled and recalled u/s 254(2) read with Rule 25 of ITAT Rules. Thus, the earlier exparte order has been recalled to be heard afresh by giving opportunity to both the parties. 4. In the grounds of appeal the Revenue has raised the following grounds:- 1. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in facts and law in not holding that the assessee is taxable u/s 9(1)(i) of the IT Act, 1961 in relation to the assessment of his business income as done by the Assessing Officer? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in facts and law in not holding that there exists a business connection of the assessee in India and his business income as computed by the Assessing Officer is taxable u/s 9(1)(i) of the IT Act, 1961? 3. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in facts and law in applying the provisions of I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompany, to buy a residential property in India in his own name and not in the name of the company? 10. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in not taking into account that the assessee has not discharged his onus by failing to provide copy of bank accounts regarding receipt of USD 51.m million and USD 41.5 million even while accepting that he had provided services to Gulf Finance House of UAE in relation to the Valuable Group of India, and not considering the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Soignee R Kothari v/s DCIT IN WP(L) No. 3172 of 2015 where it was held that in the normal course of human conduct, if a person has nothing to hide and serious question are being raised about the funds, a person would put to rest all questions which seem to arise in the minds of the authority? 11. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in not taking into account the decision of a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of GVK Industries Ltd. & Anr Vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr in Civil Appeal No. 7796 of 1997 where extraterritorial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmal course of human conduct, if a person has nothing to hide and serious question are being raised about the funds, a person would put to rest all questions which seem to arise in the minds of the authority, and the assessee had failed to provide even basic documentary proof such as bank statements of DAR Group of companies w.r.t. investments in Indian companies of the Valuable Group? 16. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary." 5. Subsequently, the assessee filed a letter with Registry that he has not received Form 36 as filed by the department and the registry after verification of the fact, issued Form 36 to the assessee. Later, assessee filed a cross objection wherein following grounds were raised by the assessee:- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Learned assessing Officer in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The respondent craves, leave to add, amend or delete the said ground of appeal." 6. First, we will deal wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich are based in Mauritius. The two Mauritius entities are owned 100 percent by Shri Rangachari, by his own admission in his statement recorded on 13.04.2013, in response to question no. 4 of the same. Based on the advice provided by Mr. Rangachari, the GFH and KBHC have made investments in India in collaboration with the Valuable Group. During search, Arun Rangachari claimed to have rendered consultancy services to Gulf Finance House and Khaleej Bank of Commerce, which included identification of land, local partners in India and allied activities at Energy City Panvel and Logistics Park, Pen and also claimed to have done liasioning between GFH and KBHC for which they paid consultancy fees to the companies owned (100%) by Shri Arun Rangachari amounting to INR 465 Crores. Thus, it is clear that though the consultancy/advisory services have been rendered by Mr. Rangachari in India and invoices have been raised to both these entities, as mentioned by him in his statement, in lieu of which payments have been made by GFH, as mentioned in email to the Companies owned by Shri Rangachari in Mauritius. Mr Rangachari has never admitted that whatever services were being rendered by him in Ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nologies 03/10/20 08 10,00,00,000/- Thurles India Investment Ltd Valuable Destinations Pvt Ltd 06/10/20 08 42,48,74,985/- Dar ventures Nisarg 06/10/20 08 26,68,15,069/- Total 94,44,74,054/- During course of statements during the search, Mr. Rangachari promised to give details of the sources of investments made by him in India but despite the several opportunities given by the Investigation Wing to provide the exact details of the year wise break-up of the amounts, received by Thurles International Ltd. and DAR Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd., the same have not been furnished by him. It is seen that the investment, made by Shri Rangachari in shares of Indian entities have been sourced not only from his personal account but also from DAR Capital (Response to question no.7). It is quite clear that a large amount of payment (Rs. 465 crores, equal to USD 93 Million) has been made to his 100 percent owned entities in Mauritius on account of services rendered in India and the proceeds from the same have been used to make investments in India through his 100% owned companies, as mentioned above, which also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....logy Pvt. Ltd. and made investment of Rs. 26.68 in M/s Nisarga Building ad Technology Pvt. Ltd. on 3/10 / 2008 as per his reply to question No. 16 of the statement recorded. Further in his reply to question No. 22 he had admitted that he was allotted a flat him in October, 2008 for a consideration of Rs. 5,11,10,987/-. The assessee has promised to provide documentary evidence for the above investments made. However failed to do so. The source of investment is not explained by the assessee. Further, the assessee has claimed to have raised invoices against GFH and KCB for the services rendered to them in reply to q. No. 33 of the statement recorded. During the course of search the assessee was asked to provide copies of invoices raised. He promised to provide the said invoices and bank statement for receipt of amounts on or before 19/4 / 2013 However, till date he has not provided the same. In reply to Q. No. 34 regarding the source of investments made in India and abroad, it is explained that he had invested USD 65 million in India and promised to confirm the exact figures on or before 19/4 / 20013 Till date he has not produce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 1,56,84,464/ - was remitted from his UAE HSBC A/c to NREA / c in Chennai during the F.Y. relevant to A.Y. 2008-09. Therefore, he was requested to give the source from where such amount was credited in assessee's HSBC Middle East A/c. In spite of various opportunities given on 2/12 / 2015 12/1 / 2016 3/12/2016, 11/2 / 2016, 24/2 / 2016 the assessee's AR only submitted that none of the said sum in question have been received during the year 2007-08 relevant to A.Y. 2008-09 by the said entities i.e. Dar Capital Ltd. and Thurles International Ltd.. It is further stated that Thurles International Ltd. Is incorporated in F.Y. 2008-09 relevant to A.Y. 2009-10 only and it is further stated that none of the receipts during the year in question which have been transferred to account maintained in India are out of any sum received from GFH and that investment made during the year are out of money received from overseas was from assessee's own account. It is also very peculiar that the assessee claimed that assessee being a resident of UAE but the money for the services rendered by him in India is being received by his two 100% owned companies based in Mauritius and therea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be unfavorable to the person who withholds it......" Section 114(g) of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, thus clearly says that the Courts can presume existence of certain facts if the person liable to produce evidence which could be and is not produced, which if produced would have been unfavorable to the person who withholds it. In the instant case, the assessee could have very well given the documents to show the source of generation of the amounts invested in India but he has chosen not to produce evidences to establish the same. Thus, as per the provisions of Section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 also, it needs to be held at this stage that the information/details not furnished were unfavorable to the assessee and that the source of the money invested is undisclosed and sourced from India. Thus, the provision of S. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act raises an adverse proposition against the assessee in the background of the investments made by him in India as well as failure to provide the source of such investments which are in the nature of unexplained investments, taxable in India. Shri Rangachari has not filed any Return of Income for A.Y. 2009-10 in Indi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td and M/s. Thurles Investments which are separate companies having separate legal entity and were registered outside India. Therefore, there cannot be any tax incidence in the hands of the assessee in his individual capacity as business profit. Further the allegation of supposed investments amounting to Rs. 307.03 Crores is also erroneous and there is no such investment made by the assessee. However, ld. AO disposed of the objection vide letter dated 06/11/2017 objecting the contention of the assessee. 8. The ld. AO in the assessment order held that amount received by M/s. Dar Capital Ltd and M/s. Thurles International Ltd are taxable in India in the hands of the assessee looking to the fact that assessee has provided consultancy services to GFH and KBHC from India from a fixed place of business in Mumbai. His reasoning for taxing the amount received by the consultancy services by two companies are as under:- 7.1 It has been established by the Investigation Unit of Mumbai that the consultancy work has been rendered by the assessee for the business operations carried out in India. The consultancy work included identification of land, local partners in India and all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ish all this information by 19/04/2013. But he did not submit any information before the Investigation Wing or before the undersigned during the assessment 9. On the issue of permanent establishment in India, AO held that at the time of search action u/s. 132(1) at the premises of M/s. Dar Media Pvt. Ltd. in which assessee is a shareholder and director, was present at the said business premises and his statement was recorded u/s. 132(4) in the capacity of Director of M/s. Dar Media Pvt. Ltd. Thus, he deduced that assessee has been rendering his consultancy and other business activities from such business premises and accordingly, income earned by him by making use of the said premises is liable to be taxed under Article 7(1). Based on this he held that assessee had a PE in India under Article 5 and therefore, liable to be taxed in Article 7(1) under India UAE DTAA. 10. Without prejudice, the ld. AO held that assessee's case was also covered by Article 14 of India UAE DTAA. He observed that assessee was in India for 110 days during the year under consideration and had spent substantial time in India due to his other business interests. Thus, this fact again prove that he has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut these were not provided either in the case of any of the companies or in the case of Sh. Arun Rangachari Thus it is clear that Sh. Arun Rangachari and M/s Thurles International Ltd and M/s Dar Capital Ltd did not want the issue to become clear. 10.3 Here it is pointed out that Sh. Arun Rangachari is 100% shareholder of Thurles International Ltd and Dar Capital Ltd and as such he is in a position to control them totally They were asked to give details of the names and addresses of the persons who work for Thurles International Ltd and Dar Capital and other information about the assessee company but no such information has been provided. Thus it is clear that M/s Thurles International and Dar Capital Ltd are a shell company owned and controlled fully by Sh. Arun Rangachari. Thus, the money amounting to USD 51 5 million received by M/s Dar Capital Ltd and USD 41.5 million received by M/s Thurles International Ltd is money actually received for the consultancy work given by Sh. Arun Rangachari to OFH in India. 10.4 Sh. Arun Rangachari has received payments amounting to USD 51.5 million in the name of M/s Dar Capital based at Mauritius and USD 41.5 million in the na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Rangacharı gave them consultancy services and arranged for their meetings with some prospective parties for this purpose in India. GFH and KBHC selected Valuable Group for this work. They started the two projects namely, Energy City at Panvel and Logistics Park at Pen, both in Maharashtra, Near Mumbai. These projects materialised because of active liasoning and consultancy service given by Sh. Arun Rangachari to GFH and KBHC. He brought GFH and KBHC and Valuable Group together As a result, above two projects were started. Due to his services, Sh. Arun Rangachari was to receive payment For tax management purpose, Arun Rangachari decided to route these payments through his foreign based company. For this purpose he received USD 31.5 million in the name of M's Dur Capital Lad. Mauritius and USD 41.5 million in the name of Mis Thurles International Ltd, British Virgin Islands from OFH. Thus the consultancy service was given to OFH and KBHC for operations in India but payment was received by M's Dar Capital Lid and Thurles International Ltd, two foreign hased companies based outside India, in tax haven. This was done purely to save tax in India. 11. In view of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... these money were invested by the companies and not by the assessee. Further, the money has been remitted from outside and are not taxable in India. Here it is observed that it has been held above that the companies owned by the assessee are mere shell companies and the money routed through these are the income earned by the assessee by his own personal consultancy work. Moreover, the assessee has not furnished evidence of receiving the money through remittance. About the source of his investment in different shares, the assessee has referred to the Board Circular No. 5 dated 20- 02-1969. Board Circular is extracted as under "1. It has been represented to the Board that persons of Indian origin residing abroad but intending to return to India and settle here permanently, apprehend that the money brought in r remitted from abroad by such persons might be subjected to income-tax in India. The apprehension appears to be due to lack of information regarding the correct legal position about the taxability of the remittances of money from abroad. The general position, in this regard, is clarified below. 15.3 From the above it is seen that it is for the persons of I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lishment for appellant in India. The evidence relied upon by itself is an e-mail (sort of confirmation letter) filed by appellant DDIT to prove their case does riot establish anything in this regard Other claim is travel to India to allege as fixed place Permanent Establishment which is not correct. Also regarding Dar Media Pvt. Ltd. (100% owned by appellant) to hold fixed place business, still there is no evidence to hold it as a fixed place of business by establishing actual conduct of business in that place so as to hold it as a Permanent Establishment. The finding in paragraph 8.9 is presumption based as even if consultancy services was given to GFH and KBHC, It is not established that it is rendered in India and not UAE. Further presence of a shareholder in a business premise of a company cannot be held as an evidence to establish permanent establishment. Overall there is no reasonably good evidence that there was actual conduct of business/rendering of services in India to hold existence of Permanent Establishment so as to assess business income. 14. Also, I find that there is no evidence of any financial transaction to establish that rendered in India. In page 6 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tments made by a foreign company in the companies based in India, ld. CIT (A) held that ld. AO is to assist in the hands of an individual who is a non-resident and unexplained investment can be made u/s. 69 / 69B in case no books of accounts exists and the same is to be considered u/s. 69. Once the investments have not been made by the assessee company, then there is no reason to make addition u/s. 69 in the hands of the assessee. His reasoning for deleting the said addition reads as under:- 30. I find that merely because investment is made by a 100% owned foreign company the same cannot be held to be owned by appellant. Company has a different legal existence, created under legal provisions (being foreign company, under statue relevant in that foreign Jurisdiction) applicable. None disputes investment in this case by the foreign companies in Indian companies. The dispute is why the investment is that of Appellant and, if it is so, why it is his unaccounted investment. The former is decided upon on basis of guesswork based on loosely worded statement and latter without documentary evidence. Moreover, there is no hard evidence that same is sourced from income that has accrued or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....challenging that assessment should have been made u/s. 153C and not u/s. 148. In sum and substance his objections raised in multiple grounds and arguments can be summarized in the following manner:- * Contesting as to whether the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in recalling its earlier order dated 22.04.2022 vide order dated 03.11.2023. * Cross objections are beyond the prescribed time limit and without any reasonable cause for delay and also drew reference to the provision of section 253(4) of the Act. * Objected the arguments put forth by the Ld.AR that the assessment should have been made u/s 153C of the Act. * Further he has contested that though the assessee claims to be a resident of UAE, no evidence in the form of Tax Residency Certificate was furnished either during the course of assessment proceedings or during appellate proceedings. * Further, the assessee has investments in 100% owned companies in Mauritius (DAR Capital Ltd) and British Virgin Islands (Thurles International Ltd). The assessee was present at the searched premises. One of the findings of the search action was that assessee had rendered certain services to Gulf Finance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e left was to pursue remedy before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court rather than pointing out any illegality in recalling of the order. Thus, his substantial arguments and written submissions on this scope are out rightly rejected. 20. Coming to the issue, whether cross objections are beyond the prescribed time limit and was there any reasonable cause of delay, first of all, once the assessee had stated that it has not received the grounds of appeal and had applied for Form 36 from the Registry and after receiving the grounds of appeal filed by the department, it has filed cross objection and no delay have been pointed out by the Registry, we failed to understand to appreciate such contention that there was no cause for delay. In any case, we had made it very clear that we are not adjudicating the grounds raised in cross objection of the assessee that assessment should have been passed u/s. 153C instead of Section 148 and made it clear in the court that we will deciding the issue on merits. 21. On merits, ld. Counsel in his written submissions have raised various points supporting the order of the ld. CIT (A). The arguments of the ld. Counsel on behalf of the assessee can summari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of business. However, the revenue failed to provide any documents to prove that the consultancy services as alleged was actually provided from India. * Further, the Ld.AR pointed that the nature of business carried out by DAR Media Private Limited is completely different from the services provided by the assessee. DAR Media is in the business of film production and distribution and no ways be connected to providing consultancy services as alleged by the revenue. * Further, the Ld.AR mentioned that as per the provisions of Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, and individual and a company are separate legal entities. Thus, it is submitted that the income of a company cannot be taxed in the hands of a shareholder even if the shareholder is 100% shareholder. * On the ground of unexplained investment, the Ld.AR argued that a shareholder is a different person than the company for the purpose of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the assessee cannot be taxed for investments made by the company. As is visible from the assessment order, the Ld. AO had itself stated that the so called investments have been made by various companies and not by the assessee. In view of the same, it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... individual capacity and for the foreign companies based in Mauritius and UAE considering the fact that assessee holds 100% of the shareholders in his companies. Thus, on these grounds ld. AO has concluded that assessee had rendered the services to GFH & KBHC from PE or fixed place in India and the billing / payments were made to foreign companies i.e. Dar Capital Ltd and Thurles International Ltd to evade tax payment in India. The ld. DR also pointed out that there are no financial activities of these companies and financial accounts do not show any business activity during the year and therefore, these were nothing but a shell companies and the funds were utilized for making investment in Indian companies as well as purchase of immovable property in India. 23. From the perusal of the assessment order, we find that there is no direct or indirect evidence that assessee had rendered any services from alleged business premises of Dar Media Pvt. Ltd. One of the main reasons given by the ld. AO that assessee had failed to provide the copies of agreement for this liaison work, invoices, etc., between GFH and KBHC and M/s. Dar Capital Ltd and M/s. Thurles International Ltd. Thus, AO h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....services have been rendered from India by the assessee and not based on some conjecture and premise. Even in the statement of the assessee this fact has been clarified by him during the course of the search and has specified the nature of liasoning and consultancy work done on behalf of GFH and KBHC from Dubai. 24. The premise drawn by the ld. AO that the payment received by Dar Capital Ltd and Thurles Investments Ltd is in the nature of payment to the assessee, because, firstly, these two are shell companies with no substantial activity; and secondly, assessee is 100% shareholder in these companies. If that is the case, then AO should have called for the information through proper channel about these two companies and then adverse inference should have been drawn for taxing this income in the hands of these two companies. In fact, if at all, this payment could have be taxed in the hands of these two companies if they have any business connection in India or source of income has accrued and arisen in India; and here in this year in the hands of M/s. Thurles International Ltd., a British Virgin Island entity It has been brought on record that in assessment order dated 14/02/2018 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8.4 From the passport of Sh. Arun Rangachari, it is seen that he has been in India for 110 days during FY 2009-10 as per details given below Arrival in India Departure from India 13 April 2008 Stay in days 31st March 2008 13th April 2008 13 03 May 2008 11th May 2008 9 14th May 2008 19th May 2008 6 22 May 2008 25th May 2008 4 4th June 2008 12th June 2008 9 17th June 2008 29th June 2008 13 4th July 2008 06th July 2008 3 9th July 2008 21st July 2008 13 31st July 2008 01st Aug 2008 2 19th Aug 2008 21st Aug 2008 3 4th Sept 2008 07th Sept 2008 4 13th Sept 2008 18th Sept 2008 6 2nd Oct 2008 4th Oct 2008 3 15th Oct 2008 17th Oct 2008 3 22nd Oct 2008 25th Oct 2008 4 2nd Nov., 2008 8th Nov 2008 7 20th Nov 2008 25th Nov 2008 6 13th Jan 2008 14th Jan 2009 2 Total 110 8.5 From the above it is amply clear that Sh. Arun Ramgachari spends substantial period in India due to his business interest. This fact once again proves that he has been using the business premises at Mu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sh. Arun Rangachari has received payments amounting to USD 41.5 million in the name M's Thurles International based at British Virgin Islands. This company is mere shell company existing only on paper. The assessee company was formed for the sole purpose of receiving abroad the income earned by Sh. Arun Rangachari in India. 9.4 Sh. Arun Rangachari and M/s Thurles International Lid were asked several times to produce copies of agreement for consultancy work, the invoices raised, payment received. Had these documents been provided, the nature of consultancy work and nature of payment in lieu thereof would have become clear. But these were not provided either in the case of the assessee company or in the case of Sh. Arun Rangachari. No project wise break up of money received of the exact purpose for which the money was received from GFH and KBHC was also not given. Thus the assessee has made unsubstantiated assertions which are Ipse Dixit. 9.5 If we put the facts of the case together, we come to only one conclusion. GFH and KBHC wanted to invest in some real estate project India. For this Sh. Arun Rangachari gave them consultancy services on behalf of M/s Thurle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oceedings, the above stated Income has been added in the hands of Sh. Arun Rangachari on substantive basis. 14 The notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 30/03/2016. But the case was referred to foreign authority through FT & TR for obtaining information in the case of Sh. Arun Rangachari. M/s Dar Capital Ltd and Mis Thurles International Ltd. The requested information has not been received till now. Accordingly, the time burring date is 31/12/2017. The quantum of the additions will be altered based on the information, if it is received from the FT &TR CBDT. Moreover, the assessee has not filed any income tax return. Therefore, the assessment order is being passed u/s 144 of the IT Act, 1961. 25. Thus, protective addition has been made pending information from FT &TR CBDT. 26. Be that as may be, in so far as assessee is concerned, we do not find any material or evidence to treat the consultancy fees received by M/s. Thurles International Ltd is taxable in the hands of the assessee on the ground that it is a business income of the assessee and as there is no PE or business connection of assessee in India for rendering these consultancy services, it cannot be taxed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly involved in the acquisition of land in favour of GFH (Energy City Project) and KHCB ( Global Logistic Park). Further, it is also clear that you are actively involved in the negotiations with Valuable Group and facilitating the land acquisition by way of taking legal opinions and various clearances. All the negotiations in the process of acquisition of land on behalf of both the financial institutions were done in India. Therefore, you are hereby requested to clarify why the services given by you should not be considered as the services rendered in India and the compensation received for services rendered in India not be bought to tax in India. Ans: I was not actively involved in land acquisition for the GFH and KHCB projects. The land acquisition process requires a complete understanding of the local laws and regulations; a vast network in the target area; and significant on-ground presence in the area to facilitate the process. I enjoy none of these attributes and am based in Dubai as I have been for the past 14 years. The land acquisition for both these projects were done solely by Valuable Group. Yes, I do not deny that there were instances in which I was called upon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t other Contracting State ; or (b) if his stay in the other Contracting State is for a period or periods amounting to or exceeding in the aggregate 183 days in the relevant "previous year" or "year of income", as the case may be; in that case only so much of the income as is derived from his activities performed in that other State may be taxed in that other State. 2. The term "professional services" includes independent scientific, literary, artistic, educational or teaching activities as well as the independent activities of physicians, surgeons, lawyers, engineers, architects, dentists and accountants." 29. Thus, first of all, income from professional services or other independent activities is taxed in the resident state, that is UAE, except when conditions mentioned clause (a) & (b) are satisfied. But before applying this article, the services should fall in the scope and definition of "professional services or other independent activities of a similar character". The term "professional fees" has been defined and includes independent scientific, literary, artistic, educational or teaching activities as well as the independent activities of physicians, s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cular place is required for that place to constitute a permanent establishment, the mere presence of an enterprise at a particular location does not necessarily mean that that location is at the disposal of that enterprise" 32. In the present case, there is no evidence to prove that the assessee was using the premises for his own enterprise. Furthermore the provisions of treaty mention that for an income to be taxed in India, it is not enough that the Assessee has a fixed place of business in India but the Assessee should carry on business in India through that fixed place of business. How this income was earned by the assessee through the so called "fixed base/ permanent establishment" in India has never been established & substantiated by the revenue or Ld. DR. Hence, the condition 1 of the Article 14 is not satisfied. b) Condition 2: if the assessee has stayed in India for more than 183 days on the relevant assessment years. 33. This condition is also not satisfied as the revenue has themselves assessed the income by treating the assessee as Nonresident and the same is evident from page 1 of the assessment order. Further, the AO once again on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pany for the purpose of Income Tax Act, 1961 and he cannot be taxed for investments made by the company. 33. To make an addition u/s 69 of the Act, some factual information is required that the explanation offered is not satisfactory and it has to be established that assessee indeed made the investment, of which source is not proved. However, upon going through the Assessment order (paragraph 15) as well as counter comments by Ld. DR, the thrust of the argument of revenue is that the investing companies are shell companies. If that is so, then information should have been sought from these companies through proper channel to know the source of funds. If the source is not proved and if it is found that there is any routing of unaccounted funds linking with the assessee, then it needs to be examined if the funds transferred are form undisclosed sources from India. Without any information or inquiry, any investment made by a nonresident company cannot be taxed in the hands of an individual and that to be who is also nonresident. All this presumptions and perceptions as canvassed by the revenue cannot be the basis for addition of nonresident entity or individual. Merely because inve....