2017 (4) TMI 1667

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for technical services under India UK Treaty without considering the facts enumerated in the ground raised by the Revenue. 2. During hearing of this appeal, at the outset, Shri Yogesh Kadam, ld. counsel for the assessee contended that the impugned issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal dated 30/08/2011 (ITA No. 2759/Mum/2009). The ld. Sr. DR, Shri M.V. Raj Guru, though defended the addition but did not controvert the assertion of the ld. counsel for the assessee. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion from the order of the Tribunal dated 30/08/2011 for ready reference and analysi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is not liable to tax in India. However, the AO was not convinced with the explanations offered by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and determined the taxable income of the assessee including the of Rs. US$ 9,536,282/-, by holding that the fee received from the investment banking services in relation to the issue of ADRs/GDRs are eventually utilized in India since the benefit of the services rendered by the assessee is ultimately received by issuing Indian companies. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 3. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the income receive by the assessee from its investment banking transactions is in the nature of business income. Under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fees for technical services under the India-DTAA read with the Memorandum of Understanding forming part of the India USA DTAA as the technical services were not made available by the appellant to the Indian companies." 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue under consideration is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Raymond Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2003] 80 TTJ 120 (Mum.). The learned DR has conceded the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record as well as gone through the order....