2026 (8) TMI 1561

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e A.Y. 2002-03 and 2003-04. 2. Since, common issues are involved in both these appeals, therefore, they are heard and disposed of together for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The common grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under but the figures may differ :- "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant at INR 2,08,09,081 as against the returned income of INR 48,63,108 and accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Ld. AO is bad in law and void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making additions in the impugned order based on mere conjectures and su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rate of 3.75% instead of 2.5% of the offshore supply of equipment (as has been applied in the case of other group companies) without having any cogent basis for that. 5. The ld. DR relied on the order of the AO and brought on record the finding given by the Ld. AO in the assessment order which is reproduced as under :- "13. The Assessee is not contesting the existence of Permanent Establishment in India. However, the Assessee in its submissions has not justified why the attribution should be reduced to 2.5% from 3.75%. It is worth mentioning that reliance on the decision of another Assessee, even if the latter belongs to the same business group, cannot be construed to be a basis for accepting the same rate of attribution as the ....