TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2017 3. 2014-15 23/10/2018 4. 2015-16 25/09/2019 5. 2016-17 30/04/2021 Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. At the outset, both sides fairly submitted that identical issues arising in the present appeals have been consistently considered by the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal in assessee's own case across various assessment years. In particular, reliance was placed on the orders passed in: • I.T.A. No. 1615/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) & I.T.A. No. 2259/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2018-19), order dated 22/09/2025; • I.T.A. No. 4713/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2021-22), order dated 27/02/2025; • I.T.A. No. 7779/Mum/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09), order dated 16/06/2025. 2.1. It was further submitted that the issues involved in all these years are identical and arise on similar facts and circumstances. In particular, it was pointed out that the issues have been dealt with in detail by the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for I.T.A. Nos. 2153/Mum/2014 & 2179/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10), order dated 07/06/2024. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....porated in Germany, having taxable income in India. With regard to FTS and royalty is has shown income on receipt basis as per the India Germany DTAA. The issue before us is, whether the income of the assessee is to be taxed on receipt basis as against accrual basis. The ld. AO has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Standard Triumph Motors Ltd. (119 ITR 573) which has held that in case of non-resident, Section 5(2)(a) of the Income tax Act i.e., will have no application and taxability will be determined only under Section 5(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, i.e., by accrual. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in the case of Standard Triumph Motor Co Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 201 ITR 391 (SC) held that in the particular case, the credit entry to the account of the assessee non- resident in the books of Indian company amounted to receipt by the non- resident. Further, in the case of the assessee this issue has been settled by the Tribunal right from A.Yrs.1990-91, 1991-92, 1994-95, 1996-97, 1997-98, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. The ld. AO has not accepted the decision of the Tribunal stating that Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Bombay High C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2014 2. 2005-06 1174/Mum/2010 30/05/2014 3. 2004-05 4502/Mum/2009 18/05/2012 4. 1998-99 & 1999- 00 6133/Mum/2002 & 7589/Mum/2003 07/12/2009 5. 1994-95 1499/Mum/1998 27/06/2005 6. 1990-91 & 1991- 92 1499/Mum/1998 04/07/2005 82. Hence, we do not find any reason to take any different position. Before us the ld. DR had submitted that there is a reference in the case of Ampacet Cyprus Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2020) 119 Taxmann.com 277 (Mumbai Trib) wherein the Tribunal has referred the matter to special Bench. In the context of the India-Cyprus Tax treaty where the issue is whether interest received should be taxed on receipt basis or on accrual basis. Since in assessee's own case this issue stands settled by the Tribunal and by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court which is binding on us and therefore, reliance placed by the ld. DR in the aforesaid matter to refer to the Special Bench is declined. Thus, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed." Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case, wherein the issue has been examined in detail after considering the relevant s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Apart from that, we find that this issue stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in various assessment years details of which are as under:- Sr. No. Assessment Year ITA No. Date of Order 1. 2006-07 8094/Mum/2010 06/05/2014 2. 2005-06 1174/Mum/2010 20/05/2014 3. 2004-05 4502/Mum/2009 18/05/2012 4. 2003-04 2520/Mum/2008 09/07/2010 5. 2002-03 2099/Mum/2007 10/12/2008 6. 2001-02 1957/Mum/2007 08/12/2008 11. The Tribunal in A.Y.2001-02 has held that supply of software is not taxed as 'royalty' which has been followed in the subsequent Tribunal orders from A.Y.2002-03 to 2006-07. The relevant extracts are as under:- "6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. There is no dispute on the fact that the assessee had not separately sold software but it was part and parcel of the equipment supplies to M/s Siemens Limited. The case of the assessee is that it should be taken at "Business Profits as per Article 7 to DTAA between India and Germany. On the other hand the Department wants it to be considered as falling under Art....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee in assessment years 2003-04 & 2004-05." 13. Now, this issue of taxation of royalty under the DTAA has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs. CIT reported in (2021) 432 ITR 471 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order grouped various appeals before it into following four categories: • The first category deals with cases in which computer software is purchased directly by an end-user, resident in India, from a foreign, non-resident supplier or manufacturer. • The second category of cases deals with resident Indian companies that act as distributors or resellers, by purchasing computer software from foreign, non-resident suppliers or manufacturers and then reselling the same to resident Indian end- users. • The third category concerns cases wherein the distributor happens to be a foreign, non-resident vendor, who, after purchasing software from a foreign, non-resident seller, resells the same to resident Indian distributors or end-users. • The fourth category includes cases wherein computer software is affixed onto hardware and is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... extract any parts thereof. Furthermore, the Purchaser shall not remove any alphanumeric identifiers, markings and Copyright notices from the data carriers and shall copy such in their unchanged form. The above provisions shall apply analogously to all associated documentation. 4. You may not transfer this EULA or the rights to the Samsung Software to any third party except along with the sale of the device, and such transfer must include all components, without retaining copies. The transferee must agree to all EULA terms. The Supplier shall grant the Purchaser the right to transfer the right to use granted to it to a third party. In such case, an agreement is to be concluded with the third party by which the third party shall not be granted any rights of use over and above those granted by the Supplier to the Purchaser. 5. 2.License Grant "The Program is owned by IBM or an IBM supplier, and is copyrighted and licensed, not sold. Licensee receives a license to the Programs from Assimil8 Limited through a sublicensing agreement between IBM and Assimil8 Limited. Assimil8 Limited grants Licensee a non-exclusive license to (1) use the Program up to the Authoriz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. Accordingly, we hold that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee not only in its own case as well as by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, we hold that income derived by the assessee from supply of software cannot be subject to taxation as royalty either under Income Tax Act or under the treaty. Thus, ground Nos. 2-5 raised by the assessee are allowed." 6.1. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case, wherein the issue has been examined in detail after considering the relevant statutory provisions, judicial precedents and the factual matrix, we find no reason to deviate from the view already taken. Since the facts and circumstances in the year under consideration are identical, and no distinguishing feature has been brought to our notice by either side, the findings and directions contained in the said order are squarely applicable to the present assessment year. Accordingly, this issue is decided in terms of the directions contained therein, and the Assessing Officer is directed to give effect to the same. 7. Issue No. 4: AOP Issue We have perused the submissions advanced by both ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as set-forth therein. That the parties shall be liable jointly and severally vis-à-vis DMRC for the obligations of the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender documents. However, such joint and several liability shall not extend to any third party other than DMRC, nor for any purpose other than the project and each party shall be liable in respect of its separate and independent scope of work set forth therein (refer clause 1.2) ii. Nothing in the BS03 contract shall be deemed to constitute, create, give effect to or otherwise recognize a corporation, association, partnership, joint venture or formal or informal business entity of any kind. It shall also not be construed as providing for common management, capital contribution and sharing of profit and losses arising out of the project. (refer clause 1.3) iii. The scope of work to be carried out by Siemens Limited was as specified in MOU (refer Clause 5) and such scope of work to be carried out by the assessee was as specified in the MOU (refer Clause 6) iv. Each party shall be solely and entirely responsible to the other party for the performance of the contract in respec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment and (iv) onshore rendering of services. Of the above, the assessee had to perform the former two activities and Siemens Limited had to perform the later two. In respect of individual work to be carried out by each of the parties they have raised their respective invoices and received payments in respect thereof. Siemens Limited has offered the income arising to them from the onshore supply of equipment and the onshore rendering of services which position stands accepted in the assessment order passed in their case on a substantive basis. Similarly, the income arising from offshore rendering of services has been offered for tax by the assessee herein which has been accepted by the AO in the assessment order passed by him. 23. Thus, the issue arising in the grounds before us is, whether the said arrangement will constitute AoP between the assessee, Seimens AG and Siemens Ltd. 24. In the draft assessment order, the ld. AO has alleged that the income earned by the assessee from BS03 contract is in the nature of composite contract and the income therefrom is subject to tax on account by and large on the following observations made by him:- - The BS 03 Con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Limited and held that the income from offshore supplies should be taxed in the hands of the said AOP. Accordingly, the AO proposed that the income arising from offshore supplies was taxed in the hands of the AOP on substantive basis and in assessee's hand only on protective basis. 26. The ld. DRP vide its directions held that the issue relating to constitution of the AOP cannot been gone into and the issue relating to taxability of offshore supply of equipment is considered on the basis as if a substantive assessment thereof has been made in the assessee's hands. The ld.DRP relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Limited (2007) 158 Тахman 259 (SC) and the tax Treaty between India and Germany including the protocol thereto and concluded that the income arising from the offshore supply of equipment is not chargeable to tax in India. The DRP has also followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the assessee's own case in ITA No.1033 of 2010 for the AY 1997-98 and ITA No.5591 of 2010 for AY 1999-00 which is to the same effect. 27. However, pursuant to ld. D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - volition or will to come together, - for the purpose of producing income, - common management of affairs, and - sharing of profit or loss between the members of AOP. These ingredients are cumulative and not exclusive. All of them must be present for an entity to constitute an AOP. Even if one of the ingredients is absent, then such an association cannot be assessed in the status of a ΛΟΡ. 31. Before us ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Pardiwala submitted that none of these conditions have been fulfilled in the present case therefore, no AoP has come into existence. He submitted that now this issue stands squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division vs DDIT [2014] 365 ITR 1 (Delhi), wherein, the High Court has discussed this issue in paragraphs 25 to 70 held that under these circumstances no AOP was constituted. He submitted that it is admitted by the AO in the assessment order that the facts in the present case are similar to that of Linde AG as he has extensively relied upon the order of Linde AG by the AAR which now stands reversed by the Delhi High C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orpor ated arrangeme nt established for the limited purpose of representations and dealing with DMRC with independent and separate scope vis- a-vis DMRC for the obligations of the Project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Tender document. Such Joint and Several Liability shall not extend to any third party other than the Project and each one will be liable in respect of its separate and independent scope of work set forth herein." Clause 1.3 of the MOU forming part of the Contract states as under: "...Nothing in the BS03 Contract Agreement shall be deemed to constitute, create, give effect to, or otherwise recognize a cooperation, association, partnership, joint venture or formal or informal business entity of any kind (incorporated or not incorporated)." 4. Scope of work specified Responsibilities of each member were separate and independent. Neither of the members had any role to play with respect to the scope of work which was allocated to the other member (Para 39 Nature of work undertake n and capable of being executed by each member is very much different as defined in Clauses 5 and 6 of the MOU, forming part of the Contract 5 - The alloc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting a partnership, joint venture or any other legal entity among the parties": vii. the profits and losses are being borne by the individual members themselves and common expenditure not being incurred by them; viii. the joint and several liabilities towards the employer have been apparently introduced as a safeguard to Company to have better hold over the Consortium members. 35. Further, the analysis of assessee's case in Hyundai Rotem Co., (supra) have been highlighted in the following manner:- No. Points for Consideration Points as discuss ed by AAR in the case of Hyundai Rotem Co. Factual Position in the present contract 1 Scope of work Nature of work undertaken by each member is qualitatively different and each member has distinct skills. Work Assigned to one party cannot be undertaken or re- allocated to another member Nature of work undertaken and capable of being executed by each member is very much different as defined in Clause 5 and 6 of the MOU, forming part of the Contract. Work assigned to one party cannot be undertaken or re-allocated to another member 2 Evaluation of members Evaluation done by DMRC separat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aced on the decision of another AA Ruling in the case of Hyosung Corporation v. DIT [2009] 314 ITR 343 (AAR) wherein similar observations as above were made and concluded that no AOP could be formed in that case also. The petition filed by the Revenue against the Ruling in Hyosung Corporation, was dismissed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 2765/2010 dated 25th March 2011 where it was held that price for offshore supply is not taxable and therefore other questions on formation of AOP would not arise for consideration. The AAR accepted the division of work between the parties to the contract and the customer and held that: .., "... The assignment which was in terms of the MoU paved the way for such separate contracts and the same was accepted and acted upon by Power Grid. Each party performs the obligations under the respective contracts awarded to them separately and receives the monies payable under the contracts independent of each other. L&T, which was not a party to the bid, is recognized as an independent contractor in various documents. L&T is entitled to raise the bills for the work carried out by it separately and such bills shall be payable by Power Gri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lated information are discussed in detail below: 7 Scope of Contract The DMRC and Siemens AG Siemens (India) Limited Consortium Contract Agreement (BS 03) dated 08.10.2007 between as per Clause 1 mentions that DMRC agrees to hire and the Contractor agrees to be hired to implement the design, manufacture, supply, install and commission Train Control & Signaling system for Extension of Line 3 of the Mass Rapid Transport System Phase I Project under the terms and conditions specified in this Contract Agreement and the other Contract Documents attached hereto Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, hereinafter referred to as DMRC floated Instruction to Tenderers (ITT) in respect of the relevant Contract BS-03 with the following scope of work "Instructions to Tenderers Volume I The work comprises design, manufacture, supply, installation, testing and commissioning Train Control & Signaling system on the extensions, integration with existing Line systems, supply of spares, and the training of Operation and Maintenance personnel "the Contract has established a consortium in accordance with Indian law and offered a tender for the design and construction of a rail ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence, it is clear that the Contract is an indivisible one having closely inter-related elements of on-shore as well as off-shore supplies as well as services. Apart from the Contract BS-03, another old Contract 3503 has also been awarded to the relevant consortium: The Contract Agreement (3S 03) dated. 10.09.2004 between DMRC and Siemens AG (Transport Systems)-Siemens (India) Limited Consortium as per Clause 1 mentions that: "Clause 1 DMRC agrees to hire and the Contractor agrees to be hired to implement the design, manufacture, supply, install and commission Train Control & Signaling and Telecommunication systems 3S03 of the Mass Rapid Transport System - Phase One Project under the terms and conditions specified in this Contract Agreement and the other Contract Documents attached... Hence, the Contract of 3S 03 is akin to the BS 03Contract are described in detail. Therefore, it is clear and evident that in sum and substance, the BS 03 as well as 3S 03 contract is a composite one with no specific assignment or distribution of scope of work. Even the para 5 and 6 of the MoU merely fixes the responsibility by making one of the par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posite contract. The object in floating the tender is to get the MRTS commissioned and installed at sites indicated, in furtherance of Train Control& Signaling system. Hence, on a look at the contract in the light of the objective sought to be achieved, there appears to be no substance in the argument that the contract contains multiple distinct pats and they have to be separated for the purpose of taxation. It cannot be held that both the parties to the contract intended to treat the claimed scopes of work to be treated separately. Thus, on a true construction of the contract in question, it is clear that the income there-under has arisen to the assessee in Indian a composite manner. 10. Composite Nature of the Contract-Cross-fall Breach Clause In this case, Siemens (India) Limited has been made the Consortium Leader/lead partner. It has been mentioned in the Clause 4 of the relevant MoU that: "...4. Siemens Limited will be the Consortium Leader with the mandate to sign and submit all documents required to be submitted by the consortium in accordance with the requirement included in the Project Tender documents/bid documents, as well as to act as liaison....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in which the values assigned to the onshore services are prima facie unreasonable vis-a-vis values assigned to the offshore supplies, which make no economic sense when viewed in isolation with offshore supplies contract. To that limited extent, our views are the same as of the learned Authority for Advance Ruling. In other words, the transactions are to be essentially looked at as a whole, and not on standalone basis, when the overall transaction is split in an unfair and unreasonable manner with a view to evade taxes. In order that such a situation can arise, it is sine qua non that while the assessee submits the bids for different segments (e.g. offshore and onshore in the present case) separately, these bids are considered together, as a single cohesive unit, by the other party, and this fact must be apparent from material on record. On the facts of this particular case, we have also noted that each set of contracts, i.e. offshore supply contract and onshore services and supply contract, has a cross fall breach clause which provides that a breach in one contract will automatically be classified as breach of the other contract. ... While these clauses undoubtedly give an indicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cannot be followed in view of the 3 Judge verdict in Vodafone International Holdings vs. UOI 345 ITR 1 (SC) where it has been held that a transaction has to be "looked at and not looked through" and seen as a whole and not by adopting a "dissecting approach". A contract for sale of goods differs from a contract for installation and commissioning of a project. The tests relevant for considering where the title to the equipment, passed would not be relevant while construing the terms of a supply and performance contract. On facts of this case, the contract is for Train Control & Signaling system of rail-based mass rapid transport system and not one for sale of equipment or fitting of the equipment. It is a composite & indivisible contract for supply and erection at sites within the territory of India and cannot be split. The income accrued in India and was assessable as business income. It has been held by the Hon'ble AAR that: A contract has to be read as a whole. The purpose for which the contract is entered into by the parties is to be ascertained from the terms of the contract. In the case on hand, ONGC clearly called for a contract for "services for supply....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... As discussed in the above section, it is clear that the contract was one and indivisible and could not be split up as sought to be done by the assessee. The contract was one for Train Control & Signaling system of rail-based mass rapid transport system in India and the contract cannot be split up since essentially, it was a composite contract for the commissioning of an electrical transmission project. It appears that the contract has been deliberately split through an artificial 'consortium arrangement for no obvious reason of avoiding formation of a Permanent Establishment (At the site of installation and commissioning) in India and avoid taxability in India. Further, clearly, the Members of the Consortium viz. Siemens AG and Siemens Limited (India), who have come forward to execute the Contract, form an 'Association of Persons' (AOP) within the meaning of section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act. The following traits exist in the case of performance of the contract: (a) There was clearly a common purpose in their coming together and common management. (b) The coming together was with the intention to undertake an activity with a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat obligation. Thus, the tender is the raise and entre and the contract with the tenderer is the foundation for the combination of the associates coming together to perform the obligation there under. After committing themselves to perform the contract in terms of the contract with the tenderer, however the members of the group divide the performance of the obligation that would not affect the nature and content of the obligation undertaken by them jointly. Their arranging the inter se relationship (As the 'Consortium members') while performing then obligation, cannot alter the status they acquire as association members in performing a joint obligation undertaken by the association. The source of the receipt in this case is the contract with DMRC and not the contract inter se or the understanding among the members of the association. Therefore, it is clear that what is relevant in this context is to consider the legal rights and obligations arising out of and undertaken under that composite contact/transaction to determine the status of the association as a person. Hence, the Association Members including the assessee and its related concern Siemens Limited, India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elhi Metro Rail Corporation on account of offshore supply and offshore services is also liable to tax in India. In this regard, the AO has held that the income under the consortium agreement is liable to tax in the hands of an AOP consisting of the Assessee and Seimens limited i.e. another group company of the assessee. The AO has held that though the Income is primarily taxable in the hands of the AOP, in the event the income is subsequently held to be liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee then the income on account of onshore supplies and services should also be considered as assessee's Income for the previous year .In this regard, the AO has estimated 5% of the total supplies as assessee's Income . 40. In rejoinder, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in so far as reliance from the judgment of three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings BV Netherlands vs. Union of India and another (supra) which has also been referred in AAr Ruling in the case of Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division, the same is not applicable in the fact of the present case and this has also been overruled by the Hon'ble Delhi High ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ately which has been clearly defined in Clause 5 and 6 of MOU. Once there is a separate invoicing and payments in respect of separate claim of work, then where is the question of treating them as AOP, because each member does not act as an agent of the other. In so far reliance placed on the 'joint and several liability' towards the DMRC as referred in Clause 9.1 has been imposed by DMRC, this was only to safeguard itself by having a better hold over the parties for timely and successful completion of the project which provides between the members of the consortium, each Party shall indemnify and hold harmless the other Party to its MOU from all costs, claims, actions, expenses or liabilities incurred by or imposed upon the other Party as a result of or in connection with its failure, breach, delay or other default in the performance of its respective obligations. 43. Lastly, Clause 1.3 of the MoU is very clear that nothing in the contract agreement shall be deemed to constitute, create, give effect to or otherwise recognize a corporation, association, partnership, joint venture or formal or informal business entity of any kind and the insurance qua the contract has been t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....On the other hand, Ld.AO considered the contract document as a single contract for a lumpsum payment for all goods and services. The Ld.AO held that since the contract is a single indivisible contract with closely connected elements of offshore and onshore supplies, the entire income arising from the contract is liable to tax in India. The Ld.AO thus proposed to tax the income arising out of the offshore supplies of goods made by the assessee. 8.2. In the course of DRP hearing, the assessee has submitted that though there was a single contract, the role of each of the parties has been clearly specified in the same. It is submitted that the assessee was liable only for the contract pertaining to offshore supply and the assessee did not have any role to play in respect of onshore activities, which are to be performed by SL. 8.3. It was further submitted that the income pertaining to the onshore activities has already been offered to tax by SL in its return of income and the same has been assessed to tax. It is further provided that there is no lump sum payment involved for all the services and supplies and the contract provides for separate consideration for which separate invo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mann 259. The Ld.AO held that after the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Vodafone(supra), the earlier decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd.(supra), is no longer applicable. It is noted that the issue involved in present case is considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd(supra) wherein it is categorically held that income from such offshore supply of goods is not liable to tax in India under the Act. In so far as taxability under the DTAA is concerned, it is observed that the Protocol in the Indo German DTAA specifically deals with the same. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd., and provisions of the Protocol to Article 7 in the India Germany DTAA, the Ld.AO is directed not to tax the income arising from offshore supply of goods. As regards the reference to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings BV(supra), it is held that the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the concept of 'look-at' and look-through' princ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... explained that the difference is for the reason that assessee accounts the amount on receipt basis whereas the Indian AE's reports the transaction on accrual basis and this assessee has been doing in accordance with the provisions of the tax treaty. It is important to note here that, this position has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High court in assessee's own case that it should be taxed on receipt basis. It was for this reason amounts recorded by the Indian AE cannot be the same. Apart from that, the assessee reports only those transactions that are subject to tax in India, i.e., element of Fees for Technical Services only, whereas Indian AEs report all the transactions like purchase / sale of goods, provision and availing of services, reimbursement / recovery of expenses whether income/expense. It is thus quite natural that there would be differences in the transactions reported by the assessee and the AE's. Once this has been brought on records and assessee has given this explanation for reconciliation, then this cannot be the reason or ground for making adhoc adjustment @10% by taking 10% mark-up on the value of international transaction. Such an exercise is completel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by both sides in light of the records placed before this Tribunal. This issue pertains to taxability of interest income from NTPC. It is noted that Coordinate Bench in A.Y. 2009-10 has adjudicated this issue on identical facts by observing as under:- "55. In so far as taxability of principle of arbitration award, the same has not been disputed because the receipt is not chargeable to tax in absence of PE or said income being attributable to PE. Similarly, the interest of arbitration award from NTPC is also in the nature of claim made by the assessee on NTPC and was not the debt claim only the arbitration was awarded. Hence, we hold that interest on arbitration award do not represent income in the current year. This view is also supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Govinda Choudhury & Sons [1993] 203 ITR 881 (SC) where it was held that interest awarded as a result of an arbitration award following a dispute in relation to a work executed by the assessee was a revenue receipt and incidental to the business carried on by the assessee and thus assessable as a business income and not income from other sources. 56. Further, ....