DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S OMEGA HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 144/BANG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 November 2020AY 2010-113 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw its appeal as the dispute was resolved through the MAP. Consequently, the revenue's appeal, also concerning the same transaction, was dismissed as the dispute was settled.

What were the facts?

The appeals by both the assessee and the revenue concerned the determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) rendered between the assessee and its Associate Enterprise. The assessee had initiated a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) with the USA competent authority to resolve the transfer pricing dispute.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions. The secondary issue was the impact of a resolved Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) on pending appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C,Section 92,Section 27

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayanan, A.R
For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Hearing: 11.11.2020Pronounced: 11.11.2020

PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

IT(TP)A No.232/Bang/2015 is an appeal by the assessee, while IT(TP)A No.144/Bang/2015 is an appeal by the revenue. Both these appeals are directed against the final order of assessment dated 29.12.2014 of DCIT Circle-5(1)(2), Bengaluru passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] in relation to assessment year 2010-11. The ground of challenge in both the appeals of the assessee and that the department is with regard to the determination of Arm’s length price (ALP) in respect of an international transaction of rendering Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) between the assessee and its Associate Enterprise (A.E.). The disputed addition in the appeal by the revenue is also with regard to the determination of ALP of the aforesaid international transaction u/s 92 of the Act.

2.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us a letter dated 29.10.2020, wherein it has been mentioned that the assessee had filed a request with United States of America (USA) competent authority to initiate a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) u/s 27 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between the Government of USA and the Republic of India for avoidance of double taxation for prevention of fiscal evasion. In the application so made, relief was sought with regard to the Transfer Pricing adjustment in respect of the international transaction that is in dispute in these appeals. The competent authorities of India and USA have resolved the case and accordingly, the assessee seeks to withdraw the appeal filed by it.

IT(TP)A Nos.144&232/Bang/2015 Omega Health Care Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

Page 3 of 3 In terms of Rule 44G of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules), the Assessee is required to furnish proof of withdrawal of appeal pending on the issues that were the subject matter of MAP at the time of communication of acceptance of MAP resolution. The learned counsel for the Assessee has accordingly sought leave to withdraw the appeal of the Assessee.

3.

We accordingly accept the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal of the Assessee. The appeal of the department also being an appeal in respect of the international transaction and determination of ALP is also liable to be dismissed in view of the settlement of the dispute through MAP. Accordingly, both these appeals are dismissed.

4.

In the result, both the appeals of assessee as well as revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th Nov, 2020.

More judgments on Section 144C

All 3,699 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →