w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Atos Information Technology HK Ltd. v/s Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation)- 1 (1) (2), Mumbai


Company & Directors' Information:- ATOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH1983PTC030711

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LTD [Active] CIN = U74140DL1992PLC048211

Company & Directors' Information:- C H C INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200WB2001PLC093126

Company & Directors' Information:- TAXATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2000PTC106716

Company & Directors' Information:- V R INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900MH2000PTC128632

Company & Directors' Information:- K. K. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200OR2009PTC011100

Company & Directors' Information:- S A I S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72100TN2010PTC075284

Company & Directors' Information:- S H INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2005PTC135610

    IT Appeal No. 1464 (Mum.) of 2015

    Decided On, 04 March 2016

    At, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. SAKTIJIT DEY
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. RAMIT KOCHAR
    By, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Kanchun Kaushal, Dhanesh Bafna, Advocates. For the Respondent: Jabir S. Chouhan, CIT (DR).



Judgment Text

Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member

1. This appeal, filed by the assessee company, being ITA No. 1464/Mum/2015, is against the assessment order dated 28.01.2015 passed by learned assessing officer (hereinafter called "the AO") u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter called "the Act") read with Section 144C(13) of the Act, passed in pursuance of directions dated 22.12.2014 u/s 144C(5) of the Act passed by the Disputes Resolution Panel-IV, Mumbai (Hereinafter called "the DRP"), for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.The ground raised by the assessee company in the memo of appeal filed with the Tribunal reads as under:-

"1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation) 1 (1)(2), Mumbai ('the Learned AO') and the Dispute Resolution Panel ('the DRP') erred in holding the sum of Rs.40,46,45,646 as 'Royalty' and 'Fees for Technical Services' under Section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In doing so, the Learned AO and the DRP disregarded the Contract for Provision of Computing Services entered into between the Appellant and Standard Chartered Bank, India ('SCB India') for the services rendered by the Appellant to SCB India.

The Appellant humbly prays that the aforesaid receipts should not be taxed in India and the Learned AO be directed accordingly.

1.2 Without prejudice to above Ground No. 1.1, the Learned AO and the DRP erred in denying the benefit of the rate prescribed under section 115A of the Act. In doing so, the Learned AO and the DRP held that SCB India being a non resident company does not fall within the ambit of the term 'Indian concern' as per the provisions of section 115A of the Act and accordingly, the provisions of section 115A of the Act do not apply to the payments made by SCB India.

The Appellant humbly prays that the Learned AO be directed to apply the rate as prescribed under section 115A of the Act.

1.3 Without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1.1 to 1.2, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, while calculating the tax liability of the Appellant, the Learned AO has erred in taxing income on gross receipts instead of net receipts received by the Appellant (i.e. after deducting the expenses attributable to gross receipts).

The Appellant humbly prays that the Learned AO be directed to compute the chargeable income of the Appellant by adopting net receipts instead of gross receipts.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO erred in granting a short credit of TDS amounting to Rs.4,33,02,870.

The Appellant humbly prays that the Learned AO be directed to grant a credit for the aforesaid TDS as per the section 199 of the Act read with Rule 37BA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,83,38,488 without appreciating that the entire income of the Appellant is subject to deduction of tax at source and hence, the question of advance tax does not arise.

The Appellant humbly prays that the Learned AO be directed to delete the interest levied under section 2348 of the Act."

3.The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated in Hong Kong providing service/facilities for the processing of data through computer software. The assessee company is a non-resident in India. It has declared 'nil' income in the return of income filed with the Revenue and claimed refund amounting to Rs. 8,73,61,947/- being the entire amount of TDS.

4.It is submitted by the assessee company that the assessee company had entered into a contract for providing data processing support service to Standard Chartered Bank, India, who are in the business of banking in India. It is submitted by the assessee company that the assessee company entered into a contract/agreement known as Cocteau agreement dated 12.02.2004 whereby data relating to branch transaction was fed by Standard Chartered Bank ("SCB" in short) from their workstation and transmitted to the assessee company database centre in Hong Kong. It is submitted by the assessee company that the application software of SCB was neither designed nor acquired by the assessee company. The hardware network and software used by the SCB at their workstations were owned by SCB itself. It is further submitted that the assessee company did not have any role in preparation and transmission of data from SCB workstations in India to the assessee company in Hong Kong. Once the data was received by the assessee company from SCB was looked into, output data was transmitted back to SCB using the same software, as used and provided by SCB, after retaining the back office data. It was submitted by the assessee company that it had no right to access the data of SCB India. It was submitted by the assessee company that similar services were made available by the assessee company to other clients as well. It was submitted by the assessee company that neither SCB had any right to exploit the data independently nor there was any user rights, procured by the assessee company to access the data base for or in favour or behalf of SCB. It was further submitted that in terms of Cocteau Agreement, the Reserve Bank of India vide its letter dated 5thOctober, 2004 granted approval for specific services to be rendered by the assessee company to SCB-India and storing data in India and SCB-India transmitted the data to Hong Kong. The assessee company submitted that the payment made by SCB-India to the assessee company for use of services provided by the assessee company cannot be termed as 'Royalty' as provided u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Act nor the same can be called as 'fee for technical services' as provided u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee company submitted that the Tribunal in earlier year i.e. the assessment year 2009-10 inAtos Information Technology HK Ltd.v.ADIT (International Taxation)[2015] 67 SOT 174/53 taxmann.com 222 (Mum.)had set aside the matter to the file of the A.O. for de-novo determination/adjudication of the matter and more so Explanation 5 were added to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act with retrospective effect and to consider the effect of same after considering the afore-stated retrospective amendment in the Act. It was also submitted that there is no double taxation avoidance agreement (DTAA) entered into by India with Hongkong and hence the determination of income being accrued in India and assessable in the hands of the assessee company has to be considered with respect to section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Act read with other provisions of the Act as applicable. It was submitted that the assessee company is using the information/infrastructure owned by it to provide facility/services to SCB-India and the same services are also provided to other clients apart from SCB-India and the assessee company is merely doing data processing work through computer software on behalf of the SCB-India. It was submitted that the assessee company had agreement with Standard Chartered Bank for 68 countries for data processing of the Standard Chartered Bank. It was submitted by the assessee company that the payment made by the SCB-India cannot be deemed to be royalty or fee for technical services as per provisions of the Act. It was submitted that the processing of data is done in Hong Kong and not in India. Our attention was drawn to the invoices raised and the payment being made correspondingly towards the same. It was contended that no technical services were rendered whereas only processing of data was done and that too at Hongkong and no part of services are rendered in India. The A.O. has chosen the selective clauses of the contract and held that the payment received by the assessee company from SCB-India is payment for royalty and fee for technical services as defined u/s 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Act respectively. It was further submitted that there is no business connection of the assessee company in India. The ld. Counsel for the assessee company also distinguished the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case ofCITv.Kotak Securities Ltd.[2012] 340 ITR 333/20 taxmann.com 846and submitted that in the said case BSE/NSE had in this case had given access to the user whereby the transactions/trading between the buyer and seller of the securities is concluded which is regulated, controlled and managed by the stock exchange till the transactions are finally settled while in the case of the assessee company the access to infrastructure/software owned by the assessee company is not given to the SCB. The ld. Counsel also relied on the following decisions:-

1. Sheraton International Inc. v. Dy. DIT [2006] 10 SOT 542/107 ITD 120 (Delhi)

2. Skycell Communications Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 53/119 Taxman 496 (Mad.)

and contended that it is only processing of data of SCB-India as per the banking regulatory requirement and analysis reports which are generated as per the requirement of Standard Chartered Bank.

5.On the other hand, the ld. D.R. submitted that the Mumbai-Tribunal in the assessment year 2009-10 has set aside the matter to the file of A.O. for de- novo determination of all the issue's raised by the assessee company and more so when there are retrospective amendments in Section 9 of the Act. The matter being similar, this matter should also needs to be set aside in view of retrospective amendments in Section 9 of the Act, the A.O. will re-decide the issue after considering the retrospective amendments brought in section 9 of the Act. It was also submitted that the Mumbai-Tribunal for the assessment year 2005-06 and 2008-09 has also set aside and restored the matter to the file of the AO vide orders dated 07-03-2014 inAtos Oirgin Hong Kong (P.)v.Dy. DIT (International Taxation)[2014] 66 SOT 193/44 taxmann.com 274 (Mum. - Trib.)for the assessment year 2006-07 and 2008-09 also. The Ld. DR submitted that no double taxation avoidance agreement (DTAA) has been entered into by and between India and Hong Kong and hence taxability of the service charges paid by the SCB-India to the assessee company has to be determined in accordance with the Act. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee company is not merely processing the data of SCB. The assessee company had entered into a contract for providing data processing support service to Standard Chartered Bank in India. The staff and key personnel of the assessee company are compulsorily appointed with the consent/approval of the Standard Chartered bank and the assessee company has no authority to appoint key personnel without the approval of the SCB. The SCB has also access and control over the infrastructure and software of the assessee company. There is a direct control over the infrastructure and software of the assessee company by SCB The ld. D.R. relied upon the following decisions:-

1. Cochin Refineries Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 222 ITR 354 (Ker.)

2. CIT v. ONGC Ltd. [2009] 309 ITR 244/179 Taxman 257 (Uttaranchal)

3. Cargo Community Network (P.) Ltd., In re [2007] 289 ITR 355/159 Taxman 243 (AAR)

4. CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 333/20 taxmann.com 846 (Bom.)

The Ld. DR submitted that the provisions of the Act is applicable as there is no DTAA agreement with Hong Kong. The Explanation 5 is added to section 9(1)((vi) of the Act with retrospective effect and hence the A.O. has rightly held that the income earned by the assessee company is royalty and technical services and is chargeable to tax in India u/s 9(1)(vi) and 91(1)(vii) of the Act. The ld. DR submitted that the decisions relied upon by the assessee company are not applicable to the present case as in those cases, there is DTAA with the respective countries and they are rendered prior to the retrospective amendment in Section 9 of the Act by Finance Act, 2012. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee company is not merely processing the data of SCB-India whereas it is a case of payment of royalty and technical services.

6.The ld. Counsel for the assessee company, in the rejoinder, submitted that the case ofSheraton International Inc. (supra) is directly applicable to the present case and the pith and substance of the agreement is data processing and the same is a commercial arrangement entered into by the assessee company with SCB-India. With respect to ground No. 1.2, the ld. Counsel submitted that the SCB is an Indian concern as defined u/s 115A of the Act and in support, he relied upon the decision in the case ofJt. Official Liquidator of Bank of Credit & Commerce (Overseas) Ltd.v.Jt. CIT[2006] 6 SOT 391(Mum.-Trib.)and submitted that there is a typographical error in the order of the A.O. and the rate as prescribed by section 115A of the Act is 10% and not 20%. With respect to the other grounds, the assessee company submitted that if the said payment are held to be income taxable in India and benefit of Section 115A of the Act is denied to the assessee, then the expenses incurred by the assessee company should be allowed if it is held to be royalty/fee for technical services. In support, the ld. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:-

1. Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2003] 85 ITD 478 (Delhi)

2. DHV Consultants BV, In re [2005] 277 ITR 97/147 Taxman 521 (AAR)

7.We have considered the rival contention and also perused the relevant material on record including the case laws cited by both the sides. We have observed that the Mumbai-Tribunal in the assessee company's own case for the assessment year 2009-10 inAtos Information Technology HK Ltd.'scase (supra) dealt with the similar matter and the Mumbai-Tribunal held as under:-

"Instant appeal is filed against the order of DRP under section 144C(5), dated 07.09.2012, wherein, the following grounds have been taken:

"The under mentioned grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.

1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assistant Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) 1(1), Mumbai ('the Learned AO') and the Dispute Resolution Panel ('the DRP') erred in holding the sum of Rs. 21,39,71,104/- as 'Royalty' and 'Fees for Technical Services' under Section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In doing so, the Learned AO and the DRP disregarded the Contract for Provision of Computing Services entered into between the Appellant and Standard Chartered Bank, India ('SCB India') for the services rendered by the Appellant to SCB India.

The Appellant humbly prays that the aforesaid receipts should not be taxed in India and the Learned AO be directed accordingly.

1.2 Without prejudice to above Ground no. 1.1, the Learned AO and the DRP erred in denying the benefit of the rate prescribed under section 115A of the Act. In doing so, the Learned AO and the DRP held that SCB India being a non resident company does not fall within the ambit of the term 'Indian concern' as per the provisions of section 115A of the Act and accordingly, the provisions of section 115A of the Act do not apply to the payments made by SCB India. The Appellant humbly prays that the Learned AO be directed to apply the rate as prescribed under section 115A of the Act.

1.3 Without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1.1 to 1.2, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, while calculating the tax liability of the Appellant, the Learned AO has erred in adopting chargeable income as gross receipts instead of net receipts received buy the Appellant (i.e. after deducting the expenses attributable to gross receipts).

The Appellant humbly prays that the Learned AO be directed to compute the chargeable income of the Appellant by adopting net receipts instead of gross receipts.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO erred in granting a short credit of TDS amounting to Rs. 9,54,980/-.

The appellant humbly prays that the Learned AO be directed to grant a credit for the aforesaid TDS as per section 199 of the Act read with Rule 37BA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act amounting to Rs. 42,11,918/-.

The Appellant humbly prays that the Learned AO be directed to delete or appropriately reduce the interest levied under section 234A of the Act.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,01,85,410/- without appreciating that the entire income of the Appellant is subject to deduction of tax at source and hence, the question of advance tax does not arise.

The Appellant humbly prays that the Learned AO be directed to delete the interest levied under section 234B of the Act. That Appellant craves leave to add, to amend, to substitute, to withdraw, to modify, to alter and/or re-instate the foregoing grounds of the appeal at or before the time of hearing".

2. The facts as emerging from the orders of the revenue authorities are that the assessee is a company incorporated in Hongkong and providing services and facilities for processing data through computer software. The assessee had entered into a contract for providing data processing support service to Standard Chartered Bank, India, who are in the business of banking in India. The assessee entered into a contract/agreement dated 07.08.2005, whereby new data relating to branch transaction was fed by SCB from their workstation and transmitted to the assessee data base centre in Hongkong. The application software was neither designed nor acquired by the assessee. In fact, hardware, network and software used by SCB at their workstations were owned by SCB itself. The assessee did not have any role in operation and transmission of data from SCB workstations in India to the assessee in Hongkong. Once the data was received by the assessee from SCB was looked into, output data was transmitted back to SCB, using the same software, as used and provided by SCB, after retaining the back office data.

4. In the entirety, on to and fro of data transmission, the assessee had no right to access the data of SCB India. It was further submitted that neither SCB had any right to exploit the data independently nor there was any user rights, procured by the assessee to access the data base for or in favour or behalf of SCB. Similar services were made available by the assessee to other clients as well.

4. In this factual scenario the payment made by SCB India, for the use of services provided by the assessee could not be termed as 'Royalty'.

5. The assessee further urged that the services could not be characterized as FTS u/s 9(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, because, the to fall in such service characterization, the assessee should have expertise/special skill/knowledge to provide the service. In the present case, the assessee did not have any of the above qualifications but it was a company, which provided services to clients, who required back office rendition.

6. The revenue authorities after examining the work manual and modus applied by the assessee, concluded,

"The AO, however, held that the contract submitted by the assessee in relation to these services was only in the nature of a confirmatory letter, and the services performed actually flowed form a Cocteau Contract dt. 12.2.2004, which is a comprehensive document of 1135 pages and is signed and entered into between Atos Origin, UK and Standard Chartered Bank, UK. This fact is clearly stated in the confirmatory letter furnished by the assessee. The AO examined the Cocteau Contract and found that under the contract, the Atos Group companies, called the Supplier companies, have to provide certain technology, infrastructure facilities, environment and services to the Standard Chartered Bank group in accordance with certain agreed standards. The objective spelt out in the contract is to continuously improve the performance and business operations of the bank entities. The objectives include providing the SCB group with a global reaching, flexible and technologically innovative approach in delivering data centre and related computing services, to access broader and deeper range of technological skills and to leverage the capabilities and technology of the assessee group for rapid business growth. The extent of technical support is evident from the support and services provided for various critical functions like 24 hours ATMs, verification of clearing cheques, visa authorization etc. The Cocteau Contract also provided that Atos shall be required to do procurement and asset management for SCB and to provide a procedural manual for SCB personnel in order to ensure that all technological developments and changes are documented and properly maintained. The entire documentation relating to the performance of the services was to be maintained in an online library which is directly accessible by the SCB group entities. The Cocteau contract also provides for creation of the assessee's data centre at Hongkong, as per the requirements and standards laid down by SCB. New infrastructure and operating systems were required to be set up at these centers and it is specifically provided that operational and remote technical support shall be delivered via a combination of services from Atos Hongkong and other Atos entities.

3.3 In view of the above facts, the AO held that the assessee has provided SCB India with the use of its equipments and processes and has also rendered services in connection with the same. The procedure manual complied by Atos for the benefit of SCB India was held to be information for which the right to use had been provided to SCB. The AO held that in these circumstances, the charges paid by the assessee amounted to royalty as defined in section 9(1)(vi). It was further held the assessee was also provided advanced technical services. For example, the Cocteau Contract provided that the Atos group will proactively monitor and manage resources and individual clustered management systems in order to detect bottlenecks and potential problems and to automatically recover from critical situations. He, therefore, held that the charges paid can also be classified as fees for technical services. The AO analysed some of the invoices raised by the assessee and held that the description of services in these invoices strengthened his conclusion that the charges were paid as royalties and fees for technical services. The AO further held that section 115A is not applicable in the present case since it applies to payments made by the government or an Indian concern, while in the present case, the Standard Chartered Bank is a foreign bank only running branches in India. He, therefore, held that the amount of US$ 42,34,536/- equivalent to Rs. 21.4 crores was chargeable to tax @ 40%".

It was further held by the Panel that,

"We have carefully considered the facts submitted by the assessee and the fact stated in the assessment order. It is noted that the agreements under which the services are stated to have been provided are essentially in the nature of confirmation letters addressed by the assessee to the Standard Chartered Bank. It is clearly stated in these letters that there has been 'regional consolidation of systems and data centres and cutover of India systems completed on 7.8.2005 to achieve centralization and efficiency of services'. It is further stated in these letters that these services are being provided in accordance with the Cocteau contract dt. 12.2.2004 entered into between the assessee group and Standard Chartered entities. The AO has quoted extensively from the Cocteau contract in the assessment order and a perusal of these extracts (some of them are mentioned above) makes it very clear that the services rendered by the assessee are not merely data processing services of a low-end or back-office variety.

4.1 With regard to the characterization of the payment, we find from the relevant portions of the Cocteau contract cited by the AO that the services being performed were required to be documented and maintained in the form of a reference manual, which was always accessible to the SCB India personnel who could print and copy any of the materials stored in the library. This documentation evidently related to critical processes that are involved in the efficient functioning of the bank. The documentation was also in the nature of information which is accessible and always available for use by the SCB India personnel.

We have also noted that Explanation 5 inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1976 provides that royalty includes consideration in respect of any information, whether or not the possession or control of such information is with the payer, or is used directly by the payer, or is located in India. Further, Explanation 6 similarly inserted with retrospective effect clarifies that royalty includes consideration for the use of any process, whether or not such process is secret. These clarifications were not before the Hon'ble ITAT when they considered the issue in the assessee's own case in AY 2004-05. Moreover, the nature of services rendered has also undergone a change with a Cocteau contract entered into in February, 2004. In the light of the above facts and the clarifications made by the Finance Act, 2012, we are of the view that the payments made by the Standard Chartered Bank to the assessee can be categorized as royalty.

4.2 We are also of the view that the nature of the services provided, as brought out by the AO, can certainly be categorized as managerial and technical services. It is clear from the terms of the Cocteau contract that the services rendered are not merely back office or date pr4ocessing services but are services relating to critical areas of the functioning of the bank and the objective underlying the services is to improve the management and the operations of the bank. Evidently, there is a high degree of skill, both managerial as well as technical, involved in the rendering of these services. This Panel therefore holds that the payment made by the assessee can also be categorized as fees for technical services.

4.3 With regard to the rate of tax, we are in agreement with the AO that the beneficial rate of 20% provided u/s 155A applies only to payments made by Indian entities. The objective underlying the beneficial rate of tax is clearly to enable3 Indian businesses to acquire better technology form non-residents and foreign companies. In the present case, the payments are made by Standard Chartered Bank which is a foreign bank and not an Indian entity. The decision of the ITAT in the case of Bank of Credit and Commerce was rendered in the context of interest paid by a branch to the head office and it was held that in the context, the branch is a separate concern located in India. In the present case, the mere fact that branches are located in India does not mean that the entity making the payment also becomes an Indian concern. We accordingly confirm the action of the AO in taxing the total amount @ 40%".

7. The Panel, therefore, rejected the contention of the assessee for levy of lower tax @ 20% and sustained the findings and decision of the AO to charge tax @ 40%.

8. In this circumstance, the assessee is in appeal before ITAT.

9. At the time of hearing, the AR submitted that the issue was raised and reached the ITAT in the case of the assessee in assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09 in ITAs no. 6562/Mum/2009 and 6889/Mum/2011, wherein the coordinate Bench mentions,

". . . . that the liability or otherwise of the assessee regarding its receipts has to be re-adjudicated in the light of aforementioned retrospective amendment. The orders passed in the assessee's case by the AO, DRP and ITAT are prior to the aforementioned amendment in the Statute. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it would serve the interest of justice if all these appeal except ITA No. 6888/Mum/2011 are restored back to the file of the AO with a direction to re-adjudicate the issues in accordance with law after giving further opportunity to the assessee and placing all the material required for adjudication of the issues raised in the present appeals. After giving opportunity the AO will readjudicate all the issues raised in the present appeals as per provisions of law.

7.1 Similar is the position in respect of Ground No. 1.3 & 1.4 and additional ground No. 1.5 in which the assessee has raised grievances regarding rates of tax to be applied on the above receipts. All these issues on merits are to be readjudicated as per law in ITA No. 6762/Mum/2009 & 219/Mum/2010 being cross appeals in respect of assessment year 2006-07 against original assessment.

7.2 The other issues raised in ITA No. 6888/Mum/2011 regardi

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ng leviability of interest under section 234B which was admitted to be consequential and with a rider that assessee has liberty to show before AO why it is not liable for levy of interest under section 234B, the matter would be re-adjudicated in original assessment proceedings as discussed in para 5.3 of this order". 10. Based on the above decision of the ITAT in the preceding year(s), the AR submitted that for the sake of consistency, the issue, in the current years, deserved to be restored to the file of the AO. 11. The DR did not object to the submission of the aAR for restoration of the iisue to the file of the AO. 12. On hearing both the sides, we are of the view that since the preceding years were awaiting adjudication at the AO stage, it would be inappropriate for us, to come to any conclusion. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the revenue authorities and restore the issue to the file of the AO for a fresh adjudication, in line with the decision taken by he AO in the preceding years(s). Needless to mention, adequate and reasonable opportunity shall be given to the assessee, to present its case. 13. Grounds no. 1.2 & 1.3 pertain to rates of tax to be applied. These grounds being linked to ground no. 1, This issue is also set aside to the file of the AO, who shall compute the tax as per the amended provisions, after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. 14. Ground no. 1.1 is therefore, allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Ground no. 2 pertains to not giving credit of TDS of Rs. 9,54,980/-. 16. The AO is legally bound to allow TDS to the assessee as per law. We, therefore, direct the AO to allow the undisputed and legally correct claim of TDS & on doing so, the AO shall allow the benefit of TDS, as claimed in the GOA. 17. Grounds no. 3 & 4 pertain to chargeability of interest u/s 234A and 234B. 18. The exigibility of interest is consequential to the tax computed. Bend consequential, the AO is directed to recompute the interest u/s 234A & 234B as per law. 19. In the result, the appeal as filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes." 8.Respectfully following the afore-stated orders of the co-ordinate Bench of the Mumbai-Tribunal in the assessee company's own case for the assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No. 7321/Mum/2012, we also set aside the orders of the Revenue Authorities in the instant appeal in ITA No. 1464/Mum/2015 for the assessment year 2011-12 and restore all the issues raised by the assessee company in the ground of appeal filed with the Tribunal to the file of the A.O. for de-novo determination of all the afore- stated issues on merits in accordance with law and also keeping in view the direction given by the Tribunal hereinabove in the appeal inAtos Information Technology HK Ltd.'scase (supra). Needless to say, the adequate and proper opportunity of hearing will be granted by the AO to the assessee company in accordance with the principles of natural justice in accordance with law.We order accordingly. 9.In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0. 1464/Mum/2015 for the assessment year 2011-12 is allowed for statistical purposes.
O R