2 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Aforesaid appeal of the assessee is against assessment order dated 31 st January 2017, passed under section 143(3)

Transcription

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL L BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.1113/mum./2017 (Assessment Year : ) C/o Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3, 27 th 32 nd Floor Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone (W), Mumbai PAN AABCI5883M. Appellant v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai. Respondent S.A. no.106/mum./2017 (Arising out of ITA no.1113/mum./2017) (Assessment Year : ) C/o Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3, 27 th 32 nd Floor Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone (W), Mumbai PAN AABCI5883M. Applicant v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai. Respondent Assessee by Revenue by : Shri Madhur Agarwal : Shri Jasbir Chauhan Date of Hearing Date of Order

2 2 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Aforesaid appeal of the assessee is against assessment order dated 31 st January 2017, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the assessment year in pursuance to the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel 1, Mumbai, (DRP), dated 18 th November ITA no.1113/mum./2017 Assessee s Appeal 2. The issue in dispute in the aforesaid appeal is in relation to the decision of the Departmental Authorities in bringing to tax the receipt from off shore supply of material and equipment. 3. Brief facts are, the assessee a South Korean Company entered into contracts with Mumbai Railway Vikas Corporation (MRVC), Delhi Metro Rail Corp. (DMRC) as well as Transmission Corp. of A.P. Ltd. (TCAPL) for installation of electric cables in relation to certain projects. As per the contract, the assessee, apart from laying and installation of cable was also required to supply materials / equipments from its manufacturing facilities in South Korea and some other places abroad. In the return of income filed for the impugned assessment year, the assessee, though, offered the income pertaining to on shore supply and services, however, as far as off shore supplies are concerned,

3 3 assessee claimed that since the sales were made abroad outside the territory of India, the receipts from off shore supplies are not taxable under Indian Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer while completing the draft assessment, however, did not agree to the aforesaid claim of the assessee and estimated the 10% on the receipts from off shore supplies in terms of rule 10 of Income Tax Rules, 1962 and brought it to tax. The assessee objected to the aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer before the DRP. 4. The DRP following its decision in assessee s own case, for the assessment year upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer in estimating the 10% on the receipts from off shore supply of goods and equipments. In terms with the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer passed the impugned assessment order. 5. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Learned Counsels appearing for both the parties have agreed before us that the issue in dispute has been decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year and in ITA no.1023/mum./2015 and ITA no.5642/mum./2015, dated 14 th October On a perusal of the aforesaid order of the Co ordinate Bench, we have noticed that while considering identical nature of dispute relating to off shore

4 4 supply of goods, the Tribunal after examining the terms and conditions of the contract vis a vis the statutory provisions as well as relevant DTAA, and following the ratio laid down in certain judicial precedents has ultimately concluded that the contract of sale in relation to the off shore supplies having completed outside the territory of India and title to the goods having passed to the customer outside India, the amount received towards off shore supply is not taxable in India. The aforesaid decision of the co ordinate bench squarely applies to the present appeal as the facts involved are materially same. In fact, the DRP while deciding the issue has simply followed its own decision for the assessment year , which now stands reversed by the decision of the Tribunal as referred to above. In view of the aforesaid, we hold that the amount received from off shore supplies of goods / materials is not taxable at the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to exclude the amount received by the assessee from off shore supplies and compute the income of the assessee. Ground no.1, is allowed. 6. In view of our aforesaid decision, the other grounds raised by the assessee having become infructuous need not be adjudicated. 7. In the result, assessee s appeal is allowed.

5 5 S.A. no.106/mum./ In view of our decision in ITA no.1113/mum./2017, the stay application filed by the assessee becomes infructuous and, hence, dismissed. 9. In the result, stay application is dismissed. 10. To sum up, assessee s appeal is allowed and stay application is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- B.R. BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The CIT(A); (4) The CIT, Mumbai City concerned; (5) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; (6) Guard file. Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary True Copy By Order (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai