LIOYD'S REGISTER OF SHIPPING (NOW KNOWN AS LIOYD 'S REGISTER GROUP LTD),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-3(1)(2), MUMBAI

आदेश / ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeals filed by the assessee are against consolidated orders passed by Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) –

ITA 1456, 1458 & 1459/MUM/2024 LIOYD'S REGISTER GROUP LTD. 57, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)”], dated 30/01/2024 for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14.

2.1. Both parties admitted that facts and circumsatnces in all the years under consideration based on which the addition /disallowances have been made are identical. Therefore the years under consideration are disposed off by way of a common order.

2.2. For sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 are reproduced as under:

“1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the tax of Rs. 59,04,080/- applied on IT Recharge at the rate of 15% by the learned AO as per the provisions of DAA between India and UK instead of 10.5575% under section 115A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He ought not to have done so. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of the difference in receipt as per 26AS and as per Return of Income of Rs. 24,24,187/- in case of various parties. He ought not to have done so. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the short credit of TDS given by the AO to the extent of Rs. 93,24,729 i.e (2,92,00,680- 1,98,75,951). In doing so he has disregarded the rectification application filed with AO and details provided. He ought not to have done so. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234B and section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Rs. 80,80,280/- and Rs. 95,370 respectively. He ought not to have done so. 5. The appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary and to submit such statements, document and papers as maybe considered necessary either before or during the appeal hearing.” 2.3. For assessment year 2011-12, the assessee raised additional ground vide application dated 17/09/2024 that reads as under:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITR Recharge of Rs.3,93,60,537 is not chargeable to tax as it is not in nature of fees for technical services in view of Article 13 of the DTAA between India and UK.”

ITA 1456, 1458 & 1459/MUM/2024 LIOYD'S REGISTER GROUP LTD. 2.3.1. It is submitted that the additional ground of appeal is purely a point of law which does not involve investigation of any fresh facts. The Ld.AR submitted that the relevant facts adjudicate the issue forms part of the record and no new facts needs to be considered. In support, the Ld.AR relies on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd v CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v CIT reported in 199 ITR 351, wherein, it has been held that a new ground is sustainable where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings. 2.3.2. The Ld.DR though could not object to the submissions of the assessee did not support the admission of additional ground.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us.

2.3.3. It is noted that in Ground No.1 raised by the assessee the issue contested in the additional ground has been captured in a general manner. The Ld.AR submitted that additional ground raised is more specific and needs to be considered in order to dispose of the additional grounds raised by the assessee. It is submitted that, the additional grounds raised do not require verification of any new facts. The Ld.AR, thus prayed for the admission of additional grounds so raised by assessee. 2.3.4. Considering the submissions and respectfully following the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (1998) 229 ITR 383 and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688, we are

ITA 1456, 1458 & 1459/MUM/2024 LIOYD'S REGISTER GROUP LTD. admitting the additional grounds raised by the assessee. Respectfully following the above, we admit the additional grounds raised by assessee in both the years under consideration. Accordingly, the additional grounds filed by assessee stand admitted.

Brief facts of the case for AY 2011-12 are as under:-

(i) “M/s. Lloyd’s Register Asia, U.K.” (hereinafter referred to as LRA)

(ii) “M/s. Lloyd’s Register Quality Assurance Ltd., U.K.” (hereinafter referred to as LRQA).

3.1. During the assessment proceedings, it was stated that the assessee company discontinued its Indian operations as Branch Office w.e.f. 1/4/2004. M/s. Lloyd’s Register, U.K. has entered into a License Agreement on 16/07/2003 with other legal entities (its subsidiaries) including LRA and LRQA, whose names and registered office/trading addresses are mentioned in the Schedule- 1 to this agreement as Licensee.

3.1.2. During the year, the assessee has shown the receipt of license fee from LRA-IBO and LRQA-IBO as Royalty Income on which tax has been paid @ 15% as per Article 13(2)(a)(ii) of the India-U.K. treaty as under: 4

ITA 1456, 1458 & 1459/MUM/2024 LIOYD'S REGISTER GROUP LTD.

(1) License fees received from LRA-IBO Rs. 9,52,72,864

(2) License fees received from LRQA-IBO Rs. 95,28,905

TOTAL Rs. 10,48,01,769/-

3.1.3. For AY 2011-12, the assessee offered the IT recharge fees to tax at concessional rate prescribed u/s 115A of the Act at 10.5575%.

3.1.4. The Ld. AO noted that the facts and issues in the current year are exactly the same as in the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. In the view of the above, reliance is placed on the earlier assessment orders to hold Management charges received in this year by the assessee as chargeable to tax as technical services under Article 13(4)(a) of was holed that the India- U.K.. DTAA. It was noted that in the assessment orders for last 6 years that the objectives of both the agreements entered namely, the license agreement and the management service agreement are same i.e. to promote safety on land, at sea and in the air. Thus, from the objective and quantum of payments received on account of license fees and Management charges, the Ld.AO opined that the Management services provided by LR are ancillary and con Subsidiary to the enjoyment of Intellectual Property Right as per License agreement.

3.1.5. The Ld.AO concluded that article 13(4) is clearly applicable. He held that Management services Agreement is inextricably linked with the License Agreement and it is also a fact that the Management Services Agreement cannot be enjoyed independently without the existence of License Agreements and therefore make

ITA 1456, 1458 & 1459/MUM/2024 LIOYD'S REGISTER GROUP LTD. available Clause (c) of para 4 of Article 13 is not at all applicable in the case of the assessee. Since the management services provided are ancillary and subsidiary to the main object of enjoyment of Intellectual Property Right as per License agreement.

3.1.6. The Ld.AO thus treated the receipts as Fees for Technical Services taxable under Article 13 of India-UK DTAA and applied tax rate of 15%.

3.2. In the course of assessment proceedings vide order sheet entry dt. 26/02/2015 the assessee was asked to reconcile the TDS and the receipts as per ITS details. The assessee's representative vide letter dt. 27/02/2015 submitted as follows:

"In respect of the TDS claimed on the receipts of Licence fees from Lloyds Register Asia for the above AY 2011-12 pertaining to F.Y. 2010-11 that inadvertently the Company M/s Lloyds Register Asia deducted TDS of Rs.2,36,15,659/- on a sum of Rs.15,74,37,728/- and deposited the same with the government account. However Subsequently vide lete dt. 19/12/2014, M/s Lloyds Register Asia confirmed that the Payments were for Rs. 9,52,72,864/- only on which applicable TDS is Rs. 1,42,90,929/- Hence Assessee filed a Revised return to claim the refund of Rs.93,24,729/- out of excess TDS deducted and paid.

With respect to the other receipts of Rs. 24,24,187/- from the parties other than group companies (as per Annexure III submitted by assessee) some parties have erroneously uploaded the e-tds return in the name of M.s Lloyds Register UK as against M/s Lloyds Register Asia (IBO) and M/s Lloyds Register Quality Assurance India Branch Office(IBO). Therefore 6

ITA 1456, 1458 & 1459/MUM/2024 LIOYD'S REGISTER GROUP LTD. these receipts have been Received by Lloyds Register Asia(IBO) and Lloyds Register Quality Assurance IBO but wrongly reflected in the 26AS of the assessee."

3.2.1. The assessee's explanation has been considered but not acceptable as the receipts are still reflecting in the 26AS of the assessee company. The assessee has not produced any copy of the revised TDS returns filed by the deductor in the above cases, who have deducted tax wrongly vis a vis the amount on which deducted and/or the name of the parties of whom deducted. Therefore the difference in the receipts of Rs(6,21,64,864/-+ Rs..24,24,187/- Rs.6,45,89,051/- is added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) of the Income tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

3.3. For AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, similar issues arose regarding rate of tax applicable on IT recharge fees and consequential levy of interest on identical facts. The Ld.AO made identical additions in the hands of the assessee following the observation of previous years.

Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

“26.1 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed a written submission. The appellant submitted that in the computation of tax, the AO has taxed license fees, management fees and IT recharge fees amounting to

ITA 1456, 1458 & 1459/MUM/2024 LIOYD'S REGISTER GROUP LTD. Rs.16,22,87,717/-, Rs.2,46,84,475/- and Rs.3,82,28,189/-, respectively, @ 40%. The rate of tax at 40% was applicable to non-resident having permanent establishment in India. In the assessment order, the AO himself has noted that there was no PE of the appellant in India. The appellant submitted that license fees was taxable @ 15% under Article 13(4)(a) of the India-UK DTAA and @ 21.63% as per section 115A read with clause 2(b)(v)(D) of the part-II of first schedule to Finance Act, 2009 because the agreement dated 01061997 was entered into before 01.06.2005. Further, the management charges received, even if it is taxable, it should be taxed at the rate applicable to license fees because it was considered as technical fees. The appellant also submitted that IT recharge fees are taxable @ 15% under Article 13(4)(a) of the India-UK DTAA and @ 10.55% as per section 115A read with clause 2(b)(v)(D). The appellant also submitted that appellant being non-resident, the beneficial provision of DTAA or Income-tax Act should be applied as per section 90(2) of the IT Act. The appellant also submitted that rectification application was filed with the AO, which is also pending on the same issue. 26.2 The facts recorded and finding of the AO in the assessment order and submission made by the appellant have been considered. The facts of the case of the appellant are that during the year, the appellant received license fees, management fees and IT recharge fees amounting to Rs.16,22,87,717/-, Rs.2,46,84,475/- and Rs.3,82,28,189/-, respectively. The claim of the appellant is that the agreement for license fees and management fees and also IT recharge fees were entered into on 16.07.2003, i.e., before 01.06.2005, therefore, the management fees and license fees were taxable @ 21.63% as per section 115A of the Act and taxable @ 15% as per India-UK DTAA. In respect of IT recharge fees, the agreement was entered into after 01.06.2005, therefore, tax rate should be 10.55% as per section 115A and @ 15% under Article 13(4)(a) of the India-UK DTAA. In para 13 of the assessment order, the AO has mentioned that fees for technical services were taxable at 15% as per DTAA. The AO himself has considered tax rate of 15% as per DTAA for fees for technical services, therefore, the AO is directed to tax fees for technical services @ 15% as per DTAA. However, taxability of IT recharge fees is decided as under: The tax rate of 10% (including surcharge and cess) u/s.115A(b) is applicable to a non-resident (not being a company or foreign company) in respect of income by way of royalty or fees for technical services other than income referred to in section 44B(1) of the Act. Such royalty or fees for technical services should be from Government or an Indian concern in pursuance of an agreement made by the foreign company with the Government or the Indian concern. Where an agreement has been made with the Indian concern, such agreement is approved by the Central Govt. In the case of the appellant, the appellant being a foreign company made an agreement with the Indian concern in respect of providing IT recharge

ITA 1456, 1458 & 1459/MUM/2024 LIOYD'S REGISTER GROUP LTD. services. The appellant has not given any evidence from which it could be concluded that the agreement was approved by the Central Govt. Thus, even though the provisions of section 115(1)A(b) are beneficial to the appellant, the facts of the case do not warrant application of provisions of section 115A(b) in the case of the appellant. Thus, the AO was justified to tax IT recharge @ 40%. Aggrieved by the consolidate orders so passes, the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal.

4.1. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had offered the IT recharge fees to tax under section 115A of the Act at the rate of 10%. It was contended that the sole objection raised by the Revenue authorities was that the underlying agreement had not been approved by the Central Government. In this regard, reference was made to the Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transactions) Rules, 2000, to contend that the impugned payments did not fall within any prohibited or restricted category requiring prior approval of the Central Government or the RBI. It was thus submitted that, in the absence of any such restriction, the transaction stood covered by the general permission available under the FEMA framework and, consequently, the concessional rate prescribed under section 115A of the Act was liable to be applied.

4.2. Reliance was placed on the decision in Gemological Institute International v. ACIT reported in (2022) 192 ITD 83.

The Ld.AR further submitted that surcharge and education cess could not be levied over and above the tax rate prescribed under the applicable DTAA. In support of this proposition, reliance

ITA 1456, 1458 & 1459/MUM/2024 LIOYD'S REGISTER GROUP LTD. reliance was placed on decision of Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of Shell International B.V. vs DCIT reported in (2024) 160 taxmann.com 761 and decision of Hon’ble Kolkotta Tribunal in case of Philips Electronics Nederland B.V. vs ACIT (IT) reported in (2025) 177 taxmann.com 187.

4.3. Per contra, the Ld. DR strongly relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted that the concessional rate prescribed under section 115A of the Act was available only where the agreement in pursuance of which the payment was made had been duly approved by the Central Government, and in the absence of such approval, the assessee was not entitled to claim the benefit of the said provision. The Ld. DR further submitted that the reliance placed by the assessee on the FEMA Regulations and the concept of general approval was misconceived, inasmuch as compliance under FEMA could not substitute the specific statutory requirement contemplated under section 115A of the Act.

4.4. The Ld. DR also contended that surcharge and education cess were statutory levies forming part of the tax liability under the Act and were therefore liable to be levied in addition to the applicable rate of tax. It was submitted that the decisions relied upon by the assessee were distinguishable on facts and did not lay down any binding proposition applicable to the present case.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us.

ITA 1456, 1458 & 1459/MUM/2024 LIOYD'S REGISTER GROUP LTD. year under consideration. The objection of the Revenue authorities is confined to the aspect that the agreement under which such payment was made had not been specifically approved by the Central Government.

5.1. In this regard, we find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee that the impugned transaction did not fall within any prohibited or restricted category requiring prior approval under the Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transactions) Rules, 2000. Once the transaction itself was permissible under the applicable FEMA framework and stood covered by the general permission available thereunder, the absence of a separate formal approval from the Central Government could not, in the peculiar facts of the present case, be construed so as to deny the beneficial rate contemplated under section 115A of the Act.

5.2. Section 115A, as applicable during the relevant period, stipulated that the beneficial rate of tax prescribed therein would be available, inter alia, only where the agreement in pursuance of which the payment was made had been approved by the Central Government. In this context, reference was made to the Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transactions) Rules, 2000.

5.3. Clause 3 thereof, read with Schedule I, specifies the categories of transactions for which drawal of foreign exchange is prohibited. Clause 4, read with Schedule II, provides that drawal of foreign exchange in respect of transactions specified therein shall not be permitted unless prior approval of the Government of India is obtained. Likewise, Clause 5, read with Schedule III, stipulates that

ITA 1456, 1458 & 1459/MUM/2024 LIOYD'S REGISTER GROUP LTD. drawal of foreign exchange for transactions covered therein would require prior approval of the Reserve Bank of India.

5.4. In the present facts of the case, the IT recharge fee was paid to avail Intra Group Services concerning information technology. The pages 2 to 23 of the PB with the services being referred to at pages 19 and 20 thereof. Since the said payments do not fall within Clauses 3 to 5 or Schedules I to III of the said Rules, there was no obligation on the appellant to get an approval in respect of the said transaction from the Central Government. In the absence of any restriction, the payment should be regarded as governed by general approval granted in this regard. For this purpose, reliance is also placed on decision of this Tribunal in the case of Gemological Institute International v. ACIT reported in (2022) 192 ITD 83 handed over at the time of hearing) Since, the present payment is covered by general approval, the beneficial rate of tax as provided in section 115A should apply to its case

5.5. We find that identical issue had come up for consideration before the coordinate bench in Gemological Institute International v. ACIT, after considering the scheme of section 115A and the relevant FEMA provisions, held that where the transaction was otherwise permissible under the automatic approval route, the benefit of concessional taxation could not be denied merely for want of a separate approval from the Central Government. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the coordinate bench, we hold that the assessee was entitled to be taxed at the concessional rate prescribed under section 115A of the Act.

5.6. It was further submitted that the IT recharge fee could not be brought to tax as “fees for technical services” under Article 13 of

ITA 1456, 1458 & 1459/MUM/2024 LIOYD'S REGISTER GROUP LTD. the India–UK DTAA. The Ld. AR submitted that, in terms of Article 13 of the treaty, a service can qualify as technical services only where it “makes available” technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes to the recipient so as to enable the recipient to apply the same independently in future. It was contended that the impugned IT recharge services were merely in the nature of routine support and cost recharge arrangements and did not result in transfer of any technical knowledge or skill to the assessee. Accordingly, since the “make available” condition embedded in Article 13 of the India–UK DTAA was not satisfied, the amount received could not be characterized as fees for technical services under the treaty.

5.7. We have also considered the alternate contention advanced on behalf of the assessee that the impugned IT recharge fee is not taxable as “fees for technical services” under Article 13 of the India– UK DTAA. Under the said Article, mere rendition of technical or consultancy services is not sufficient; the services must also “make available” technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes to the recipient in such a manner that the recipient is enabled to apply the same independently in future without recourse to the service provider.

5.8. On perusal of the nature of services placed on record, we find that the impugned payments merely relate to provision of standard IT support and recharge of common facility costs. Nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that any technical knowledge, skill, know-how, or process was transmitted to the assessee so as to equip it to independently perform the functions thereafter. The services rendered may have involved use

ITA 1456, 1458 & 1459/MUM/2024 LIOYD'S REGISTER GROUP LTD. of technical expertise by the service provider; however, that by itself does not satisfy the “make available” requirement embodied in Article 13 of the India–UK DTAA.

5.9. Accordingly, even on this alternate footing, the impugned IT recharge fee cannot be characterized as fees for technical services under Article 13 of the India–UK DTAA and, therefore, would not be liable to tax in India in the absence of a permanent establishment of the assessee in India.

Accordingly, Ground.no.1 and additional Ground raised by the assessee vide application dated 17/09/2024 stands allowed.

6.1. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee earned income only from LRA and LRQA. It was contended that, due to an inadvertent mistake committed by the clients of LRA/LRQA, while filing their TDS returns, the PAN of the assessee had been incorrectly quoted, resulting in certain third-party receipts getting reflected in the assessee’s Form 26AS. It was further submitted that the concerned deductors had subsequently revised their TDS returns and, consequently, part of the incorrect entries no longer appeared in the updated Form 26AS.

6.2. As regards the remaining entries, the Ld.AR submitted that the Assessing Officer may be directed to verify whether the corresponding income had already been offered to tax in the hands of LRA/LRQA, so as to obviate any possibility of double taxation.

ITA 1456, 1458 & 1459/MUM/2024 LIOYD'S REGISTER GROUP LTD. We have considered the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us.

7.1. We further find merit in the grievance raised by the assessee that the Ld.CIT(A) has dealt with the issue simultaneously in the cases of both LRA and the present appellant. In para 36.3 at page 27 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(A) directed deletion of the addition in the case of LRA, whereas in the very same paragraph at page 28, the addition has been sustained in the hands of the present appellant. Such contradictory findings, in our considered view, require proper reconciliation and factual verification, particularly when the assessee’s stand is that the impugned receipts pertain to LRA/LRQA and not to the present assessee.

7.2. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the Ld.AO for limited verification. Needless to say, reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be afforded to the assessee.

Accordingly Ground no.2 raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA 1456, 1458 & 1459/MUM/2024 LIOYD'S REGISTER GROUP LTD. 8. Ground no.3 raised by the assessee relate to short grant of TDS credit.

8.1. The Ld. AR submitted that, as per the updated Form 26AS, the aggregate TDS deducted by LRA and LRQA amounted to Rs.2,92,00,670/-, whereas the Assessing Officer had granted credit only to the extent of Rs.1,98,75,951/-. It was accordingly prayed that the Assessing Officer be directed to verify whether the corresponding receipts had been duly offered to tax and, upon such verification, grant appropriate credit for the TDS in accordance with law.

8.2. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee failed to furnish complete reconciliation and supporting evidences before the lower authorities. Hence, additions and denial of TDS credit were rightly sustained.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

9.1. In our considered view, credit for TDS cannot be denied where the corresponding income has been duly offered to tax by the assessee and the tax deducted at source is duly reflected in the relevant records. Since the assessee has placed reliance on the updated Form 26AS and has also sought verification of the corresponding income offered to tax, we deem it appropriate, in the

ITA 1456, 1458 & 1459/MUM/2024 LIOYD'S REGISTER GROUP LTD. interest of justice, to restore this limited issue to the file of the Ld.AO.

9.2. The Ld.AO is directed to verify the updated Form 26AS, the claim of the assessee regarding offering of corresponding receipts to tax, and thereafter grant appropriate TDS credit in accordance with law. Needless to say, reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be afforded to the assessee.

Accordingly Ground no.3 raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

10.1. The Ld. AR submitted that the levy of interest under section 234B was not justified in the facts of the present case. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of DIT vs. Mitsubishi Corporation, reported in (2021) 438 ITR 174, wherein it was held that the amendment brought to section 209 by the Finance Act, 2012 operates prospectively from A.Y. 2012–13.

10.2. It was accordingly contended that, for A.Y. 2011–12, where the income in question was subject to deduction of tax at source, no liability to pay advance tax arose in the hands of the assessee and, consequently, no interest under section 234B could be levied.

10.3. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that charging of interest is mandatory and consequential in nature.

ITA 1456, 1458 & 1459/MUM/2024 LIOYD'S REGISTER GROUP LTD. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

11.1. Since the year under consideration is A.Y. 2011–12 and the income in question was admittedly subject to deduction of tax at source, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hold that levy of interest under section 234B is not sustainable. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to delete the same.

Interest u/s 234C

ITA 1456, 1458 & 1459/MUM/2024 LIOYD'S REGISTER GROUP LTD. Services and Technology (P.) Ltd. vs DCIT reported in (2026) 184 taxmann.com 94.

12.1. On levy of interest u/s.234C, the Ld. DR submitted that charging of interest is mandatory and consequential in nature.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the records placed before this Tribunal.

Accordingly Ground no.4 raised by the assessee stands allowed.

Assessment year 2012-13:

(a) taxability of IT recharge fee at a higher rate; and (b) mismatch in Form 234B&C.

14.1. The first issues already has been considered by us in the preceding paragraphs 5 to 5.9. Admittedly, the facts and circumstances forming the basis of the additions in the year under consideration are identical to those adjudicated by us hereinabove. Therefore, our findings and directions recorded in the said

ITA 1456, 1458 & 1459/MUM/2024 LIOYD'S REGISTER GROUP LTD. paragraphs shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present grounds as well.

Accordingly, Ground no.1 and additional ground raised vide application dated 17/09/2024 raised by the assessee stands allowed.

14.2. In so far as Interest under section 234B is concerned, the issue is set aside to be decided in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in DIT vs. Mitsubishi Corporation(supra). We therefore direct the Ld.AO is to consider the issue in accordance with law.

14.3. In respect of levy of Interest under section 234C, issues already has been considered by us in the preceding paragraph 13 herein above. Admittedly, the facts and circumstances forming the basis of the additions in the year under consideration are identical to those adjudicated by us hereinabove. Therefore, our findings and directions recorded in the said paragraphs shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present grounds as well.

Ground no.2 raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Assessment year 2013-14

(a) taxability of IT recharge fee at a higher rate; and (b) mismatch in Form 234B. 20

ITA 1456, 1458 & 1459/MUM/2024 LIOYD'S REGISTER GROUP LTD. 15.1. The first issue already has been considered by us in the preceding paragraphs 5 to 5.9. Admittedly, the facts and circumstances forming the basis of the additions in the year under consideration are identical to those adjudicated by us hereinabove. Therefore, our findings and directions recorded in the said paragraphs shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present grounds as well.

Accordingly, Ground no.1 and additional ground raised vide application dated 17/09/2024 raised by the assessee stands allowed.

15.2. In so far as Interest under section 234B is concerned, the issue is set aside to be decided in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in DIT vs. Mitsubishi Corporation(supra). We therefore direct the Ld.AO is to consider the issue in accordance with law.

Accordingly, Ground no. 2 raised by the assessee stands allowed as indicated in Para 15.2.

Pursuant to the retrospective amendment brought in by Finance Act 2025, the issue become infructuous.

Accordingly, the legal issue raised vide application dated 21/01/2026 stands dismissed as infructuous.

ITA 1456, 1458 & 1459/MUM/2024 LIOYD'S REGISTER GROUP LTD. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 stands allowed and appeals for assessment years 2013-14 stands partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai Dated: 29/05/2026 SC. Sr. P.S.

Copy to: LIOYD'S REGISTER OF SHIPPING (NOW KNOWN AS LIOYD, 17 TH FLOOR, UNIT NO. 1702, 1703, AND 1704, BUILDING Q2, AURUM PARC, GEN 1 4/1, TTC THANE BELAPUR ROAD, GHANSOLI. NAVI MUMBAI., -400710, MAHARASHTRA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-3(1)(2), 2 16 TH FLOOR, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT., -400021, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE