TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1640
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nting to Rs. 31,768/-. Ground No.3: The NFAC/CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowances without considering all the submissions of the Appellant and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant." 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as under: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,03,12,726/ made u/s 40(a)(i), failing to appreciate that the services rendered by the foreign member firms constitute 'Fees for Technical Services' or 'Royalty' under the Income Tax Act and the respective DTAAS, thereby attracting TDS obligations u/s 195. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in placing ultimate reliance on the Hon'ble ITAT's orders for AYs 1999-00, 2001-02, and 2007-08, ignoring the fact that the Revenue has preferred a further appeal before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on this identical issue for A.Y. 2009-10 (ITXA/1366/2022), and the matter has not reached finality. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that no tax was deductible u/s 195, thereby overlooking the statutory mandate of Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pporting evidence to substantiate the assessee's contention. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of coordinate bench in the case of the assessee's member firm, namely, KPMG Advisory Services Private Limited for AY 2012-13, AY 2015-16 and AY 2018-19 in ITA Nos. 5392 to 5396/Mum/2024 dated 13.03.2025. The Ld. AR has filed copy of the above decision in pages 1 to 22 of the paper book. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the order of lower authorities. He, however, admitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the ITAT in case of KPMG Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 8. We have heard both sides and perused the materials on record. We have also carefully gone through the decision in case of KPMG Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Ld. AR. We find that similar issue had come up for consideration before the co-ordinate Bench in case of KPMG Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra), where the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The relevant extract of the ITAT orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tage. The assessee also explained that there was no case where revenue can be written off without it being accounted and offered to tax in the earlier years and therefore, the reversal of unbilled revenue was already account in the books of account of the assessee. After considering the materials available on record, we find that AO and ld. CIT(A) have neither controverted the supporting material and detailed submission made by the assessee as discussed nor demonstrated any deficiency and suppression of any material fact by the assessee. Therefore, we consider that decision of ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance of reversing unbilled revenue is not justified. Accordingly, ground no. 2 to 3 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed. Since we have allowed the ground no. 2 to 3 of appeal of the assessee therefore ground no.1 and 4 of the appeal become academic and not required adjudication. Therefore, appeal of the assessee is allowed." 8.1 We find that the facts of the case are similar to those of the above decision. The ld. Sr. DR has not been able to distinguish the decision, either on facts or in law. Hence, following the findings of the Tribunal in the abovementioned case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the assessee need not deduct TDS as there is no permanent establishment in India of the non-residents to whom the payments were made. 13. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the order of AO. He, however, admitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the ITAT in case of KPMG India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 14. We have heard both sides and perused the materials on record. We have also carefully gone through the decision in case of KPMG India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Ld. AR. We find that similar issue had come up for consideration before the co-ordinate Bench in case of KPMG India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), where the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The relevant extract of the ITAT order for AY 2007-08 (ITA no.4861/Mum/2013) dated 23.12.2015 is reproduced below. "6. .....Further, on a perusal of the assessment order, it is clear that the Assessing Officer has failed to establish the fact that the payments were made for the use of any copyright, literary, artistic or scientific work including cinematography film or work on film tape or other means of production for use in connection with radio or television broadcasting any patent, trademark, ....