M/S CH2M HILL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5107/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 March 2021AY 2008-093 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement reached under the MAP.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought to withdraw their appeal. This was due to a settlement reached under the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) with the Competent Authorities of India and the US, resolving transfer pricing adjustments.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to a MAP settlement. An additional ground related to the disallowance of equipment hire charges for AY 2007-08 was also raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “I-1” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Tulsyani, AR
For Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT-DR

PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 29.07.2016 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XLIII, New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2008-09.

2.

During the course of hearing, at the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that he wants to withdraw the present appeal and has also filed his submission for withdrawing the appeal as under:

1.

“In connection with the captioned appeal, it is respectfully submitted that pursuant to an application filed by the Associated Enterprise of the Appellant in United States seeking resolution under Mutual Agreement Procedure (“MAP”) with the Competent Authority of United States (“US CA”) under Article 9 and 27 of India US Income Tax Convention, a settlement has been arrived at between the US CA and the Competent Authority of India (“India CA”). Please refer Annexure 1 attached herewith, for copy of communication received by the Appellant from the jurisdictional Assessing Officer in this regard.

Consequently, the Appellant submits that it has accepted the resolution arrived at under the said MAP (copy of acceptance letter filed with the jurisdictional Assessing Officer attached herewith as Annexure 2) and hence, withdraws the specific grounds of appeal (Ground No.1 to Ground No.10 arising out of the transfer pricing adjustment, as the same now stands adjudicated under MAP.

The Appellant further requests Your Honours to allow Appellant’s request for filing additional ground of appeal in relation to the following disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) in AY 2007-08:

On facts and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in not allowing, and the Hon’ble DRP has further erred in confirming the disallowance of the deduction of equipment hire charges, disregarding the fact that the amount of tax as been deducted during the last month of the previous year (FY 2006-07)and has been deposited before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act (for AY 2007-08). Should these be considered as a disallowance for AY 2007- 08, this amount should consequently be allowed in the year in which tax has actually been deposited, i.e. AY2008-09.

Trust our request will be acceded to.”

3.

Learned Department Representative did not object if the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

4.

In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10th March, 2021.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →