HACKFORTH HOLDING GMBH AND CO. KG,GERMANY vs. DCIT, INT TAX CIRCLE 2(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the income of the appellant, being a tax resident of Germany and duly supported by a Tax Residency Certificate issued by the German authorities, ought to have been taxed at the rate of 10% as per the applicable India-Germany DTAA and not at the gross rates of tax as per domestic income-tax law. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the income of the appellant, being a tax resident of Germany and duly supported by a Tax Residency Certificate issued by the German authorities, ought to have been taxed at the rate of 10% as per the applicable DTAA and not at the domestic tax rates. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had never claimed Foreign Tax Credit amounting to INR 31,00,449 as a substantive benefit and that the reference to foreign tax credit in the return of income was merely a computational mechanism adopted to neutralise excess tax arising on account of normal rates of tax applied on income, on account of the appellant being not aware about correct reporting approach of special rate income in the electronic return form. 5. Despite being vested with coterminous and wide appellate powers under the Act, the learned CIT(A) failed to adjudicate and correct the nature of income earned in India, which though inadvertently offered to tax as per normal rates of tax under the head "Profits and Gains from Business or Profession", was in fact in the nature of fees for technical services and liable to be taxed at special rate as per provisions of the Income-tax act read with the beneficial rate under the India-Germany DTAA. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in confirming the order of the learned AO by not considering the applicability of special rate of tax on fees for technical services under Article 12 of India Germany DTAA. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in confirming the order of the learned AO, which was passed without serving show cause notice to the appellant for not allowing the entire receipt as covered under Article 12 of India Germany DTAA. 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by mechanically endorsing the findings of the Assessing Officer without exercising independent appellate judgment and failed to appreciateand examine the real facts and submissions on record and merely relied upon the remand report furnished by the Assessing Officer, thereby abdicating the statutory appellate duty and rendering the order non-speaking and unsustainable in law. 9. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by completely ignoring the crucial observation in the remand report, wherein the AO admitted that the appellant had inadvertently shown income as "Profits and Gains from Business or Profession" instead of "special rate income to be taxed at the DTAA rate.” 10. The learned CIT(A) and AO incorrectly treated the correct disclosure of income and the application of the proper tax rate through a revised computation as an "additional claim," even though the income itself remained unchanged, as revised computation, which aligns the tax liability with the correct legal position without