SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -4(2)(1),, MUMBAI

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in passing/issuing the final assessment order dated 31 October 2023 under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act beyond the time limit as presented under section 153 of the Act. The Appellant submits that the final assessment order being barred by limitation is without jurisdiction and void ab initio and hence, the same is liable to be quashed. Receipts from General Business Support Services ('General BSS') does not constitute 'income'

3. Erred in holding that the payments received of Rs. 2.19.21.79,805 by the Appellant constitutes 'income without appreciating the fact that the receipts from General BSS are in nature of cost-recharge pursuant to Cost Contribution Agreement ('CCA') which does not constitute income under section 2(24) of the Act and hence not taxable in India. Receipts from General BSS does not qualify as Fees for Technical Services ('FTS')

4. Erred in holding that the payments received by the Appellant for providing General BSS constitutes FTS under the Act as well as India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('India-UK DTAA').

5. Failed in appreciating that the services provided by the Appellant are routine and not technical in nature and rendering of such services does not make available any technical knowledge, skill, experience, etc. to the service recipient, which cannot be termed as FTS under Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA and hence not subject to tax in India. Receipts towards software license charges does not constitute income

6. Erred in holding that the payments received by the Appellant towards software license charges of Rs 25.93.419 constitutes income without appreciating the facts that the said receipts are in nature of reimbursements and hence does not constitute income under section 2(24) of the Act and hence not taxable in India. Receipts towards software license charges does not qualify as Royalty Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited 7. Erred in holding that the payments received by the Appellant towards cost allocation for software license charges as Royalty' under provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA 8. Erred in not appreciating that the payments received were in nature of cost allocations of third-party vendor software license charges and not for 'use of right to use of copyright', 'use of process', 'use of property similar to patent, invention, literary work, process, design, etc, accordingly does not qualify as 'Royalty under the Act as well as the India-UK DTAA. Receipts towards GST Scoping charges and reimbursement of IT costs does not constitute income 9. Erred in holding that the payments received by the Appellant towards GST Scoping charges and reimbursement of IT costs of Rs. 13,64,24,804 constitutes income without appreciating the facts that the said receipts are in nature of reimbursements and hence does not constitute income under section 2(24) of the Act and hence not taxable in India. Receipts towards GST Scoping charges and reimbursement of IT costs does not quality as FTS 10 Erred in holding that the payments received by the Appellant towards GST Scoping charges and reimbursement of IT costs qualifies as 'FTS the Act as well as Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA 11. Erred in not appreciating that the payments were not for providing any technical services that are ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of the right, property or information for a payment under Article 13 of the India UK DTAA and without prejudice not for any services that 'make available' any technical knowledge, skill, experience, etc. and accordingly such payments could not be considered as 'FTS' under the Act and under the Article 13(4) of India-UK DTAA. Incorrect tax rate 12. Erred in applying tax rate of 15% on total income instead of 10% plus applicable surcharge and cess on total income except interest on income-tax refund without appreciating the facts and circumstance of the case. Short granting of credit for TDS 13. Erred in not granting the TDS credit of Rs. 7,46, 161 without appreciating the facts and circumstance of the case. Interest under section 234A of the Act 14. Erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act without appreciating the facts and circumstance of the case. Interest under section 234B of the Act 15. Erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act without appreciating the facts and circumstance of the cate Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited Interest under section 234C of the Act 16. Erred in levying interest under section 234C of the Act without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case Incorrect amount of refund issued 17. Erred in considering a refund amount of Rs. 80,59,352 issued to the Appellant wherein no refund was received by the Appellant without appreciating the facts and circumstance of the case Penalty under section 270A of the Act 18. Erred in levying penalty under section 270A of the Act for misreporting/underreporting of income without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of the appeal.”

Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited ii. Ground No. 2 relates to the issue of assessment being time barred u/s. 153 of the Act. Ld. AR has requested to keep it open for the time being.

Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited “10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has entered into a Cost Contribution Agreement dated 01.04.2008 with SIMPL for general BSS which are in the nature of management support, development and provision of support and business tools, provision of marketing support, promotion of professional competence, legal services, development, communication and audit of standards of performance, contracting and procurement services, taxation advice and services, general financial advice and services, employee relations and public affairs/media advice and other business support services. The assessee contends that the cost incurred by the assessee is to be allocated amongst Shell operating companies based on cost allocation keys as per the terms of CCA and further the said costs are without mark up and are charged to the cost sharers on the basis of actual cost incurred by the assessee. It also contended that the payments received without markup are in the nature of reimbursement and not in the character of income which is chargeable to tax in India. They are merely in the nature of cost-recharge as per the CCA. It is further observed that SIMPL filed an application before the Hon'ble AAR fordetermining its tax withholding obligation in respect of the cost contribution made to the assessee and the Hon'ble AAR vide its order dated 17.01.2012 held that the payments made by SIMPL to the assessee was in the nature of 'fee for technical service as per Article 13 of India-UK DTAA for which SIMPL was liable to withhold taxes as per section 195 of the Act. Parallely the assessee's case was picked up for scrutiny where the lower authorities made an addition on the impugned payment received by the assessee from SIMPL by extensively relying on the ruling of the Hon'ble AAR which held the same to be 'fee for technical service in the case of SIMPL. Though the assessee during the assessment proceeding had objected for placing reliance on the ruling of the Hon'ble AAR as being not binding on the assessee, the lower authorities failed to agree with the assessee's contention and held that as per section 245(5) of the I. T. Act, the ruling of the Hon'ble AAR had binding effect on the assessee unless there is a change in law or facts. The relevant extract of the Hon'ble AAR order is cited herein under for ease of reference: “We therefore rule on Que.No.(i) & (ii) that the payment made by the applicant to SIPCL for availing the General BSS under the CCA would constitute income in the hands of SIPCL and is in the nature of fees for technical services within the meaning of Article 13.4 (c) of the DTAA between India and UK: and not in the nature of royalty within the meaning of the term in Explanation 2 to Clause (vi) of Section 9(1) of the Act and under Article 13 of DTAA. While we rule on Que. No. (iii) & (iv), Based on answer to Que. No. (i) & (ii) that the payment received by SIPCL is chargeable to tax in India and the declaration provided by SIPCL that it does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article 5 of DTAA, we rule that the applicant is under obligation to withhold tax under section 195 of the Act."

11. Pursuant to the said ruling SIMPL had filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court challenging the validity and legality of the order passed by the Hon'ble AAR and the Hon'ble High Court (in Writ Petition No. 10788 of 2012 vide order dated 01.03.2024), quashed the order of the Hon'ble AAR as being not sustainable by law and by holding that the payment received by the assessee from SIMPL is not in the nature of 'fee for technical service and further held that the services are in the nature Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited ofmanagerial service and not technical service which are made available. The relevant extract of the said decision is cited herein under for ease of reference 15. Be that as it may, the crux of the matter lies in ascertaining whether the finding of the AAR that services availed by Pentioner from SIPCL or payments made by Petitioner to SIPCL are for technical consultation services and secondly, whether such services are made available to Petitioner. Article 13 of DTAA reads as under "ARTICLE 13 ROYALTIES AND FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES 1. Royalties and fees for technical services arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other State 2. However, such royalties and fees for technical services may also he tossed in the Contracting State in which they arise and according to the law of that State, but if the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for technical services is a resident of the other Contracting State the tax so charged shall not exceed (a) in the case of royalties within paragraph (3)(a) of this Article, and fees for technical services within paragraph (4)(a) and (c) of this Article (i) during the first five years for which this Convention has effect: (aa) 15 per cent of the gross amount of such royalties or fees for technical services when the payer of the royalties or fees for technical services is the Government of the first-mentioned Contracting State or a political subdivision of that State, and (bb) 20 per cent of the gross amount of such royalties or fees for technical services in all other cases, and (ii) during subsequent years. 15 per cent of the gross amount of such royalties or fees for technical services, and (b) in the case of royalties within paragraph (3)(b) of this Article and fees for technical services defined in paragraph (4)(b) of this Article, 10 per cent of the gross amount of such royalties and fees for technical services.

3. For the purposes of this Article, the term "royalties" means (a) payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use any copyright of a literary, artistic Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited or scientific work, including cinematograph films or work on films, tape or other means of reproduction for use in connection with radio or television broadcasting, any patent, trademark design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience, and (b) payments of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any industrial, commercial or scientific equipment, other than income derived by an enterprise of a Contracting State from the operation of slips or aircraft in international traffic 4. For the purposes of paragraph (2) of this Article, and subject to paragraph (5) of this Article the term "fees for technical services" means payments of any kind to any person in consideration for the rendering of any technical or consultancy services (including the provisions of services of technical or other personnel) wluch (a) are ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of the right, property or information for which a payment described in paragraph (3)(a) of this Article is received: or (b) are ancillary and subsidiary to the enjoyment of the property for which a payment described in paragraph (3)(b) of this Article is received, or (c) make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes, or consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design."

16. From the above words of the Article it is clear that income of SIPCL will be chargeable to tax in India only if the payment by Petitioner is towards fees for technical services Under Article 13(4), the term 'fees for technical services' means payments of any kind in consideration for the rendering of any technical or consultancy services. Sub-para (c) to Article 13(4) further restricts the meaning of the term to only that which makes available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes, or consists of the development of transfer of a technical plan or technical design.

18. The Appendix 2 of CCA contains the General BSS. The list of services availed are as under: EXAMPLES OF GENERAL BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES.

Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited  Management Support  Development and Provisions of Support and Business Tools  Provision of Marketing Support.  Development, Communication and Audit of Standards of Performance Promotion of Professional Competence  Information Technology Advice and Services  General Financial Advice and Services  Taxation Advice and Services  Legal Services  Employee Relations and Public Affairs/Media Advice and Services  HR Advice and Services.  Contracting and Procurement Services  Other Business Support Services A perusal of the list of services relate to managerial services not involving anything of a technical nature. The AAR has discussed the services appearing in the CCA and has concluded that these activities in a retail business are at the core of retail marketing and hence advice tendered in taking a decision of commercial nature is a consultancy service. The AAR has further considered the definition of the word 'Consultancy' as defined in the Oxford English dictionary and has observed that a consultant is a person who gives professional advice or services in a specialized field. However, the AAR failed to appreciate that the word 'Consultancy' appearing in the Article is to be interpreted in the context of consultancy which makes available technical knowledge, etc and not of managerial nature. The reading of the Article clearly indicates that the consultancy service must be which makes available technical knowledge, etc. Sub-para (c) to Article 13(4) restricts such services to those which make available technical knowledge or consist of development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design. Thus, a harmonious reading of the provision of Article 13 in its entirety, clearly establishes the intent of the DTAA in making income chargeable to tax only if the services availed pertain to technical services or consultancy services. Technical services in this context mean services requiring expertise in a technology By Consultancy Services, in this context, would mean advisory services. The categories of technical and consultancy services are to some extent, overlapping. Under paragraph 4, technical and consultancy services are considered included services only to the following extent (1) as described in paragraph 4(a), if they are ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of a right, property or information for which a payment described in paragraph (3)(a) of Article13 is received: (2) are ancillary and subsidiary to the enjoyment of the property for which a payment described in paragraph (3)(b) of Article 13 is received, or (3) as described in paragraph 4(c). if they make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes. or consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design. Thus, under paragraph (c), consultancy services which are not of a technical nature cannot be included services. Thus, the services availed by Petitioner cannot be said to be technical services and Article 13 is wholly applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case 19. It will be useful to refer to a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd und Anr. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and Ors.8 which held as follows: "8. Thus while stating that "technical service" would include managerial and consultancy service, the Legislature has not set out with precision as to what would constitute "technical" service to render it "technical service". The meaning of the word "technical" as given in the New Oxford Dictionary is adjective Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited 1. of or relating to a particular subject, art or craft or its techniques technical terms (especially of a book or article) requiring special knowledge to be understood a technical report. 2 of involving, or concerned with applied and industrial sciences an important technical achievement 3. resulting from mechanical failure a technical fault. 4. according to a strict application or interpretation of the law or the rules the arrest was a technical violation of the treaty 9. Having regard to the fact that the term is required to be understood in the context in which it is used, "fee for technical services" could only be meant to cover such things technical as are capable of being provided by way of service for a fee. The popular meaning associated with "technical" is "involving or concerning applied and industrial science 10. In the modern day world, almost every facet of one's life is linked to science and technology inasmuch as numerous things used or relied upon in everyday life is the result of scientific and technological development. Every instrument or gadget that is used to make life easier is the result of scientific invention or development and involves the use of technology. On that score, every provider of every instrument or facility used by a person cannot be regarded as providing technical service 11. When a person hires a taxi to move from one place to another, he uses a product of science and technology, viz, an automobile. It cannot on that ground be said that the taxi driver who controls the vehicle, and monitors its movement is rendering a technical service to the person who uses the automobile. Similarly, when a person travels by train or in an aeroplane, it cannot be said that the railways or airlines is rendering a technical service to the passenger and, therefore, the passenger is under an obligation to deduct tax at source on the payments made to the railway or the airline for having used it for travelling from one destination to another When a person travels by bus, it cannot be said that the undertaking which owns the bus service is rendering technical service to the passenger and, therefore, the passenger must deduct tax at source on the payment made to the bus service provider, for having used the bus. The electricity supplied to a consumer cannot on the ground that generators are used to generate electricity transmission lines to carry the power, transformers to regulate the flow of current, meters to measure the consumption, be regarded as amounting to provision of technical services to the consumer resulting in the consumer having to deduct tax at source on the payment made for the power consumed and remit the same to the Revenue 15. The use of the internet and the world wide web is increasing by leaps and bounds, and there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of subscribers to that facility. The internet is verymuch a product of technology, and without the sophisticated equipment installed by the internet service providers and the use of the telephone fixed or mobile through which the connection is established, the service cannot be provided. However, on that score, every subscriber of the internet service provider cannot be regarded as having entered into a contract for availing of technical services from the provider of the internet service, and such subscriber regarded as being obliged to deduct tax at source on the payment made to the internet service provider.

20. Thus, it is clear from the said decision that any service is construable as technical and one has to see the true import of the service actually rendered and the Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited determination must be made in this context. There is no such discussion in the Impugned order and the finding is based on Dictionary: The AAR further holds that the list of services mentioned in the CCA is not an on a generic reference to the meaning of the word 'consultancy as given in the Oxford English, that the AAR has proceeded on conjectures and surmises to render the finding in the impugned exhaustive list and may include other technical services. Thus Petitioner is correct in contending order.

21. The AAR has further held that the services are made available to Petitioner since while providing General BSS, SIPCL works closely with the employees of the applicant and supports/advises them. It is held that Petitioner is able to use the know how/intellectual property generated from the General BSS independent of the service provider and hence the services under the agreement are clearly made available to Petitioner In order to understand the import of the words 'made available' as used in the context of Article 13(4)(c), it will be useful to refer to a decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT. Central Circle v. De Beers (Supra). Paragraph 22 reads as follows: "22. What is the meaning of "make available" The technical or consultancy service rendered should be of such a nature that it "makes available" to the recipient technical knowledge, knowhow and the like. The service should be aimed at and result in transmitting technical knowledge, etc., so that the payer of the service could derive an enduring benefit and utilize the knowledge or know-how on his own in future without the aid of the service provider. In other words, to fit into the terminology "make available" the technical knowledge, skill?, etc., must remain with the person receiving the services even after the particular contract comes to an end. It is not enough that the services offered are the product of intense technological effort and a lot of technical knowledge and experience of the service provider have gone into it. The technical knowledge or skills of the provider should be imparted to and absorbed by the receiver so that the receiver can deploy similar technology or techniques in the future without depending upon the provider. Technology will be considered "made available" when the person acquiring the service is enabled to apply the technology. The fact that the provision of the service that may require technical knowledge, skills, etc., does not mean that technology is made available to the person purchasing the service, within the meaning of paragraph (4)(b). Similarly, the use of a product which embodies technology shall not per se he considered to make the technology available. In other words, payment of consideration would be regarded as "fee for technical/included services" only if the twin test of rendering services and making technical knowledge available at the same time is satisfied." (emphasis supplied) 22. Similarly, the Delhi High Court in the CIT (International Taxation)-1. Delhi v. M/s Biorad (Supra) has discussed the said concept accordingly. Paragraphs 14 and 15 read as under: 14. According to the Tribunal, the agreement between the respondent assessee and its Indian affiliate had been effective from 01.01.2010, and if, as contended by the appellant/revenue, technical knowledge, experience, skill, and other processes had been made available to the Indian affiliate, the Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited agreement would not have run its course for such a long period. 14.1 Notably, this aspect is adverted to in paragraphs 17 to 23 of the impugned order For convenience the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereafter "17 A perusal of the aforementioned provision shoves that in order to qualify us FTS, the services rendered ought to satisfy the 'make available test. Therefore. in our considered opinion, in order to bring the alleged managerial services within the ambit of FTS under the India-Singapore DTAA, the services would have to satisfy the 'make available test and such serviers should emulate the person acquiring the services to apply the technology contained therein.

5.4 We also note that this decision has been consistently followed by the co- ordinate benches for all subsequent assessment years till A.Y. 2020-21.

Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited As the facts remain identical, respectfully following the above mentioned decision of the co-ordinate Bench, we allow this issue in favour of the assessee. Grounds No. 6, 7,8 – Receipts towards allocation in respect of software license treated as Royalty.

9. In these circumstances, the proceedings had reached the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee. The assessee succeeded in these proceedings, with the ITAT setting aside the concurrent findings of both the authorities below. On such backdrop, the proceedings reached the High Court 10. The High Court of Karnataka, in similar proceedings, on examination of the End User Licence Agreement ("EULA") involved in such transactions found that what was sold by way of computer software, including the right or interest in copyright, which gave rise to the payment of royalty, would be an income deemed to have accrued in India under Section 9(1)(vi) requiring deduction of tax at source The orders passed by the High Court were assailed before the Supreme Court. It is also required to be noted that similar issues had arisen before the Delhi High Court interalia in the case of DIT v.

Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited Ericsson AB [2011] 16 taxman.com 371/[2012] 204 Taxman 192/343 ITR 470 and DIT v. Nokia Networks OY [2012] 25 taxmann.com 225/212 Taxman 68/358 ITR 259 (Delhi) The Delhi High Court however took a view contrary to the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka. The Supreme Court examined the issues as arising from the decisions of both the High Courts in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd (supra). The Supreme Court in its decision rendered in the said case upheld the view taken by the Delhi High Court in interpreting such transactions in the context of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that considering the provisions of DTAA, there was no obligation on the persons mentioned in Section 195(1) of the Act to deduct tax at source as the distribution agreements, in the facts of the case did not create any interest or right in such distributors/end users, which amounted to the use or right to use any copyright. It was held that the provisions of Section9(1)(vi) of the Act along with Explanation 2 and 4 thereof which dealt with royalty, not being more beneficial to the assessee, had no application in the facts of the case. It would be appropriate to extract the conclusion as rendered by the Supreme Court in which reads thus:- "168. Given the definition of royalties contained in Article 12 of the DTAAs mentioned in paragraph 41 of this judgment, it is clear that there is no obligation on the persons mentioned in section 195 of the Income-tax Act to deduct tax at source, as the distribution agreements/EULAs in the facts of these cases do not create any interest or right in such distributors/end-users, which would amount to the use of or right to use any copyright. The provisions contained in the Income-tax Act (section 9(1)(v), along with explanations 2 and 4 thereof), which deal with royalty, not being more beneficial to the assessees, have no application in the facts of these cases.

6.4 Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of the co-ordinate bench as reproduced above, we allow this ground in favour of the assessee as facts involved in this year are similar 7 Grounds 9 to 11: GST scoping charges- Reimbursement whether taxable as FTS Ld. AR has requested that ground No. 9 whether the reimbursement constitutes income, be left open in view of submissions made under Ground 10 &11. 7.2 Brief facts related to the issue are that these payments were held to be in the nature of consultancy fees, and held as FTS, being akin to BSS. Since during the period under consideration, GST laws were being implemented, there was a need for remote re-alignment of GSAP system for which the payment received was treated as FTS by the DRP.

Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited It has been submitted by Ld. AR that this issue also stands covered in favour of the assessee by orders of the co-ordinate Bench for A.Ys 2016-17 to A.Y. 2020-21. 7.3 In it has been held by the co-ordinate Bench as under: “Treatment of cost allocations in respect of GST scoping charges as FTS 13. During the year under consideration, the assessee incurred expenses towards customisation existing systems to comply with the GST regulations implemented in India. The assessee recharged the said costs to its Indian AE and the same wasreimbursed. The AO treated the said customisation receipts as FTS. The DRP held that these receipts are not independent service and very much part of BSS, thereby, holding that these services being akin to / part of BSS fall within purview of make available and is taxable as FTS.

17. In view of these discussions, we hold that the treatment of GST scoping/customisation receipts as FTS is not correct and the addition made in this regard is liable to be deleted. Ground No.21 to 23 are pallowed and Ground No.20 has become academic.”

7.4 Facts and circumstances during the year being identical, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench, we herby allow both these grounds in favour of the assessee. 8 Ground NO. 9, 10 & 11: IT Costs- Reimbursement, Whether constitutes income in the nature of FTS.

Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited These grounds are identical to the earlier ground related to GST scoping charges discussed hereinbefore. Ld.AR has requested to keep ground No. 9 open. Brief facts are that the payment for IT costs claimed as reimbursement by the assessee were treated in the nature of consultancy fees and taxed as FTS holding there to be akin to BSS. 8.2 Ld.AR submitted that the cost allocation charges towards IT costs is treated akin to BSS by the Ld.AO/DRP and the issue with respect to treatment of BSS charges as FTS stands covered in favour of the assessee by the following decisions: (i) Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd vs. UOI [2024] 463 ITR (Bom) (ii) AY 2016-17 to 2020-21 vide ITAT Mumbai order dt. 21/07/2025 It is been further stated that the assessee has recovered Rs. 12,00,53,602/- towards reimbursement of IT Costs allocated to SIMPL’s downstream business in connection with providing IT services to improve/facilitate the functioning of various software and systems. There is no change in facts vis-a-vis the earlier assessment years. Even otherwise, if these services are considered akin to BSS as held by AO/DRP, BSS changes have already been held not to the FTS in the hands of the assessee by Hon’ble Bombay High Court and co-ordinate benches for earlier years.

Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited 8.3 We have heard the rival submissions. We agree with the arguments of Ld.AR and note that since BSS changes have already been held not to be FTS in the hands of assessee, therefore, these grounds No. 10 & 11 are also allowed in favour of the assessee.

12. Ground No. 15 & 16: Interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act This is a consequential issue and Ld.AO is directed to recomputed the interest as applicable u/s 234B & 234C of the Act.

14. Ground No. 18: Penalty inititated u/s 270(1)(c) Since this ground is premature, it requires no adjudication.