AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1989
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of US$ 403,136 being fees received from Investment banking transaction with Indian Companies outside India as income of the assessee deemed to accrue or arise in India & liable to tax in India as "fees for technical services" under section 9(i)(vii) of the Act." 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the merits of the case as put forth by the AO and allowed the appeal of the assessee by simply following the decision of his predecessor." 3. "The Appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above ground(s) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored." 4. "The appellant prays that the appeal is maintainable in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ransaction with Indian Companies outside India as income deemed to accrue or arise in India & liable to tax in India as "fees for technical services" under section 9 (i)(vii) of the Act. 4. By the impugned order CIT(A) deleted the addition after observing as under:- "I have gone through the facts of the issue and the finding of the Assessing Officer' as well as the submissions of the appellant in this regard, I find that the issue involved in this ground has already been decided by my predecessor CIT(A) in assessment year 2010-11 in appellate order No. CIT(A)-55/ADIT(IT)-4(l)/IT-204/14-15 dated 18.02.2015 in favour of the appellant. Further, I find that the issue involved is confirmed by the jurisdictional Income Tax Appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mumbai on the above grounds be set aside and the order of the AO be restored." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated in and under the laws of the United Kingdom and is registered as a Foreign Institutional Investor (FII) with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The assessee has obtained necessary permission to carry out investment activity in shares and securities of India companies. During the previous year relevant to AY under appeal, the assessee filed its return of income returning total income Rs. NIL and short term loss of Rs. 23,218,968/- to be carried forward to the subsequent year. The assessee declared by way of a note in its return of income that an amount....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DCIT (2003) 80 TTJ 120 (Mum.). After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) held as under:- "5.12.................I have considered the appellant's submission and I agree with the appellant that it had opted to be governed by the provisions of the DTAA and that the provisions of the DTAA ought to apply to the appellant. Section 90(2) of the IT Act makes it very clear that the appellant is entitled to claim the benefits under the IT Act or treaty whichever is more beneficial to the appellant. The issue of taxability of the aforesaid fees in India as per the India-UK DTAA is squarely covered by Raymond Ltd's case (supra). Respectfully following the said decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal, more so as the service ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not constitute fees for technical services under the India-UK DTAA read with the Memorandum of Understanding forming part of the India USA DTAA as the technical services were not made available by the assessee to the Indian companies. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A) and hence, the order of the CIT(A) is hereby upheld. 7. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed." 2.2. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, order of the Tribunal dated 30/08/2011, material available on record, assertions made by the ld. respective counsel, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, we find that the Tribunal has....