TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1794
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act), in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel -2, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the 'Hon'ble DRP') on the following grounds, each of which are without prejudice to and independent of the others: 1. Ground 1 2. The learned AO has erred in initiating and completing assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act without issuing a valid notice under section 143(2) of the Act i.e, the notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 31 March 2021 for initiating assessment was issued by National E-assessment Centre, NeAC (NeAC) instead of being issued by Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (International taxation) - 4(2)(2) [DCIT (IT) - 4(2)(2)] [i.e. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO)]. 2. Ground 2 The learned AO has, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, and based on the directions of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in proposing to assess the total income of the Appellant at Rs 1,381,509,960, as against NIL reported by the Appellant in its return of income 3. Ground 3 The learned AO has, on the facts and circumstances of the case and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 6 The learned AO has, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in holding that the income earned by the Appellant from rendering of various support services to SRIB amounting to INR 314,641,333 and to SRBS amounting to INR 235,737,260, are taxable in India under Article 12 of the IS treaty. 7. Ground 7 Without prejudice to Ground 6, the learned AO has, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in taxing the income earned by the Appellant from rendering of various support services to SRIB amounting to INR 314,641,333 and to SRBS amounting to INR 235,737,260, at the rate of 40% (plus surcharge and education cess) in place of the rate of 10% under Article 12 of the IS treaty. 8. Ground 8 The learned AO has, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in grant short credit of Taxes deducted at Source (TDS) amounting to INR 31,730,564. 9. Ground 9 The learned AO has, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in levying consequential interest under section 234D of the Act. 10. Ground 10 The learned AO erred in initiating penalty pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. The assessee has entered into a Retrocession Agreement with its associated enterprise i.e., SRIB, which involves reinsurance of risk of SRIB. For undertaking such risk, SRIB pays the part of the premium received by it from Indian cedents to the assessee as retrocession premium. During the year, the assessee has received Rs. 948,73,03,929/- from SRIB as retrocession premium. The reinsurance and retrocession premia income has been claimed as 'business income' and in the absence of any PE in India, the entire business income is claimed not taxable in India as per Article 5 r.w. Article 7 of the IS Treaty. The assessee also earned income in the nature of FTS from Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd., India Branch (SRIB) and Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India Private Limited (SRGBSIPL) towards rendering of support services. The said receipts have been claimed as non-taxable in India as they do not make available technological knowledge, experience etc. as per Article 12(4) of the IS Treaty. This income is treated in the nature of business income in the absence of any PE in India. The entire business income is not taxable in India under Article 5 r.w. Article 7 of the IS Treaty. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer is not permitted to challenge the findings returned by the DRP in appeal before the Tribunal, the revenue cannot be permitted to set up a case against the directions passed by the DRP. Therefore, taking a view consistent with the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of SRCL in order dated 04-07-2017, passed in appeal for the Assessment Year 2013-14 (ITA No. 2759/Mum/2017), the additions made by the Assessing Officer are deleted in view of the finding returned by the DRP that the 'impugned addition already stand adjudicated by the Tribunal in the case of a sister concern in identical facts and circumstances'. Other contentions dealing with the merits, having been rendered academic, are not adjudicated upon and are, therefore, left open. [Para 7.8] ■ As regards the taxability of fee received by the appellant from SRCL-IB/SGB is concerned, it is noted that Assessing Officer had concluded that the services provided to SRCL-IB and SRGBS were to be chargeable to tax in India in terms of article 12 as the services are highly technical in nature which have made available the technology to SRCL-IB and SGB for further exploitation and use as income gener....