Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.06 seconds)
Documents citing Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M. Rm. K. Pl. Firm on 6 August, 1979

Cargill Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. ... vs Adit, New Delhi on 23 March, 2020

6.2 Before us the assessee is contending that issue in dispute of whether the cost reimbursement issued by the assessee during assessment at 2005-06 and 2006-07 satisfy the make available condition under Article 12 should be decided in accordance with the law without being influenced by the factor that in the 21 ITA No.1437 & 1438/Del/2012 & 5444/Del./2010 subsequent year the assessee has offered the same for tax in India. We do not understand, how the Assessing Officer can decide this issue without examining the documentary evidence in support of the actual services rendered. The onus was on the assessee to provide the documentary evidence in support of its claim thatpayment received was only in respect of the reimbursement of cost of daily routine support services, but the assessee has not provided any such documentary evidence either before the lower authorities or before us. Before us even the assessee has not offered willingness to produce such documents before the Assessing Officer, otherwise we would have an option to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer for deciding a fresh. But in absence of any such willingness, we do not find this as a fit case for restoring the matter back to the Assessing Officer. In the circumstances, the only option is that when the same services rendered by the assessee under the garb of the new service agreement with effect from 01/06/2005 and offered the same for tax as Fee for Technical Services (FTS), the same services rendered under the old agreement during period of 10 months in assessment year 2005-06and period of two monthsin assessment year 2006-07, also falls in the nature of Technical, Managerial or Consultancyservices liable to be taxed under the DTAA. The rule of the consistency also demands that when the assessee has admitted the payment for identical services as Fee for technical services in the subsequent year, the assessee should not dispute this issue in the years under consideration. The assessee cannot take shelter under the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M R P Firm (supra), without 22 ITA No.1437 & 1438/Del/2012 & 5444/Del./2010 providing the documentary evidence to the Assessing Officer for examining the nature of the services rendered. In the circumstances, we uphold the order of the Assessing Officer on the issue in dispute. The other arguments raised by the assessee are rendered merely academic only as without knowing the actual services rendered and whether the technical information, knowledge, know how acquired by the assessee has been utilized by the assessee as per requirement of Article12 of the DTAA, the applicability of the judicial decisions cited by the assessee cannot be examined. Accordingly, we are not adjudicating upon the other arguments raised by the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 20 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Second Income-Tax Officer vs S.T.S. Firm on 18 September, 1987

The Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner directed that the market value as on 1-1-1964 should be taken as the cost of acquisition and 70 per cent of the sale proceeds be taken as the market value as on 1-1-1964. The assessment was completed accordingly. Now Internal Audit Party has raised an objection. It has objected to adopting the market value as on 1-1-1964 at 70 per cent of the sale proceeds and suggested that the cost of properties which are the subject matter of discussion of the audit is tenable in view of the decisions of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. RM.K.P.L. Firm (124 IT.R 340) wherein on similar facts it has been laid down that the cost of acquisition as recorded in books should be taken and Section 55(2) is not applicable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1