Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (IT), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Vs. M/s. The Timken Company..........…………........................................................………………......Respondent C/o: PriceWaterHouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 56 & 57 Block-DN Sector-V Salt Lake City Kolkata – 700 091 [PAN : AABCT 9658 F] Appearances by: Shri Madhu Malti Ghosh, Addl. CIT Sr. D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Shri K.M. Gupta, FCA, & Jai Soni, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Date of concluding the hearing : January 21st, 2020 Date of pronouncing the order : February 19th, 2020 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :-
All these appeals filed by the revenue are directed against separate but identical orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata, (hereinafter the “ld.CIT(A)”), passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 28/03/2018, for the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12.
As the issues arising in all these appeals are identical, they are heard together and disposed off by way of this common order.
We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 4. There are two issues that arise in these appeals.
2 Assessment Year: 2008- Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITA No. 1276/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITA No. 1277/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. The Timken Company M/s. The Timken Company 5. 1) Taxability of Home Office Allocation receipts. 1) Taxability of Home Office Allocation receipts. 5.1. The ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated The ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the very same issue for the Assessment Year the very same issue for the Assessment Year 2002-03 to Assessment Year 2007 03 to Assessment Year 2007-08. The ITAT upheld this order. The assessee has executed an The assessee has executed an agreement with M/s. Timken India Ltd. (T agreement with M/s. Timken India Ltd. (TIL) on 02/08/2000 pursuant to which, the assessee has provided certain services to TIL. The pursuant to which, the assessee has provided certain services to TIL. The pursuant to which, the assessee has provided certain services to TIL. The assessee was in receipt of a sum of Rs.2,13,08,790/ assessee was in receipt of a sum of Rs.2,13,08,790/- from TIL, for providing the above providing the above referred services. This receipt was services. This receipt was claimed as not taxable by the assessee in its claimed as not taxable by the assessee in its computation of income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee computation of income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee computation of income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished TDS certificates relating to income of Home Office Allocation expenses. Due to furnished TDS certificates relating to income of Home Office Allocation expenses. Due to furnished TDS certificates relating to income of Home Office Allocation expenses. Due to exchange fluctuation, the amount exchange fluctuation, the amount of payment for services got revised to Rs.2,32,68,409/-. This amount received by the assessee was added as income by the . This amount received by the assessee was added as income by the . This amount received by the assessee was added as income by the Assessing Officer. The ld. First Appellate Authority, from para The ld. First Appellate Authority, from para 3 to para 6 of his order, held as 3 to para 6 of his order, held as follows:- “3. It is observed that the simil It is observed that the similar receipts were also involved in appellants own ar receipts were also involved in appellants own case for AY 2002-03 to AY 2007 03 to AY 2007-08. The matter has been decided in ITA No. 387 & 08. The matter has been decided in ITA No. 387 & 398/Kol/2010 [A.Ys 2002 398/Kol/2010 [A.Ys 2002-03 & 2003-04] ITA No. 2139/Kol/2013 [A.Y. 2004 04] ITA No. 2139/Kol/2013 [A.Y. 2004-05], ITA No. 1268/Kol/2014 [A.Y. 2005 No. 1268/Kol/2014 [A.Y. 2005-06] ITA No. 2140 & 2141/Kol/2013 [A.Ys 2006 2141/Kol/2013 [A.Ys 2006-07 & 2007-08]. The Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT has considered all the contention of the 08]. The Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT has considered all the contention of the 08]. The Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT has considered all the contention of the appellant and decided the issue in favour of the appellant. The relevant extract of the appellant and decided the issue in favour of the appellant. The relevant extract of the appellant and decided the issue in favour of the appellant. The relevant extract of the ruling is reproduced below: ruling is reproduced below:- 18. We have already set out the 18. We have already set out the nature of services to be rendered by the nature of services to be rendered by the assessee to TIL. A perusal of the clauses of Agreement dated 2.8.2000 assessee to TIL. A perusal of the clauses of Agreement dated 2.8.2000 assessee to TIL. A perusal of the clauses of Agreement dated 2.8.2000 between the assessee and TIL clearly shows that they are purely in the nature between the assessee and TIL clearly shows that they are purely in the nature between the assessee and TIL clearly shows that they are purely in the nature of advisory services. Nothing is made available to TIL by the asses of advisory services. Nothing is made available to TIL by the asses of advisory services. Nothing is made available to TIL by the assessee. As to whether or not giving advisory services can be considered to be making whether or not giving advisory services can be considered to be making whether or not giving advisory services can be considered to be making available included services, example No. 7 given in the MOU between India available included services, example No. 7 given in the MOU between India available included services, example No. 7 given in the MOU between India and USA on the DTAA throws some more light on the understanding of the and USA on the DTAA throws some more light on the understanding of the and USA on the DTAA throws some more light on the understanding of the Government s of India and the Government s of India and the USA on the subject. This example is as follows USA on the subject. This example is as follows :- "Facts : the India vegetable oil manufacturing firm has mastered the "Facts : the India vegetable oil manufacturing firm has mastered the "Facts : the India vegetable oil manufacturing firm has mastered the science of producing cholesterol free oil and wishes to market this science of producing cholesterol free oil and wishes to market this science of producing cholesterol free oil and wishes to market this product worldwide. It hires an American Marketing consultancy firm product worldwide. It hires an American Marketing consultancy firm product worldwide. It hires an American Marketing consultancy firm to do computer simulation of the world market for such oil and to to do computer simulation of the world market for such oil and to to do computer simulation of the world market for such oil and to advise it on marketing strategies. Are the fees paid to the US advise it on marketing strategies. Are the fees paid to the US advise it on marketing strategies. Are the fees paid to the US company for included services ? company for included services ?
3 Assessment Year: 2008- Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITA No. 1276/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITA No. 1277/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. The Timken Company M/s. The Timken Company Analysis : the fees would not be for included services. The American Analysis : the fees would not be for included services. The American Analysis : the fees would not be for included services. The American company is providing a co company is providing a consultancy which involves the use of nsultancy which involves the use of substantial technical skill and expertise. It is, however, making substantial technical skill and expertise. It is, however, making substantial technical skill and expertise. It is, however, making available to the Indian company any technical experience, knowledge available to the Indian company any technical experience, knowledge available to the Indian company any technical experience, knowledge or skill etc. nor is it transferring a technical plan or design. What is or skill etc. nor is it transferring a technical plan or design. What is or skill etc. nor is it transferring a technical plan or design. What is transferred t transferred to the Indian company through the service contract is o the Indian company through the service contract is commercial information. The fact that technical skills were required commercial information. The fact that technical skills were required commercial information. The fact that technical skills were required by the performer of the service in order to perform the commercial by the performer of the service in order to perform the commercial by the performer of the service in order to perform the commercial information does not make the service a technical service within information does not make the service a technical service within information does not make the service a technical service within meaning of para (4)(b)." aning of para (4)(b)." This example, set out in the MOU between the Indian and US governments, This example, set out in the MOU between the Indian and US governments, This example, set out in the MOU between the Indian and US governments, also makes it clear that consideration for advisory services rendered cannot also makes it clear that consideration for advisory services rendered cannot also makes it clear that consideration for advisory services rendered cannot be treated as fees for included services under Article 12(4)(b). be treated as fees for included services under Article 12(4)(b).
For the reaso 20. For the reasons set out above, we are of the view that learned CIT(A) ns set out above, we are of the view that learned CIT(A) indeed erred in holding that the monies received by the assessee from TIL indeed erred in holding that the monies received by the assessee from TIL indeed erred in holding that the monies received by the assessee from TIL constitute 'fees for included services' within the meaning of constitute 'fees for included services' within the meaning of Article 12(4 Article 12(4) of the India-US treaty, and are accordingly liable to be taxed in India. Since, the US treaty, and are accordingly liable to be taxed in India. Since, the US treaty, and are accordingly liable to be taxed in India. Since, the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India, the incomes so assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India, the incomes so assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India, the incomes so arising to them in India cannot be taxed under arising to them in India cannot be taxed under Article 7 as 'business profits' as 'business profits' either. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned either. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned either. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned additions.
The learned counsel for the Assessee brought to our notice that as against 21. The learned counsel for the Assessee brought to our notice that as against 21. The learned counsel for the Assessee brought to our notice that as against the ruling of the AAR in the case of TIL (supra), the A the ruling of the AAR in the case of TIL (supra), the Assessee filed a writ ssessee filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in WP 13932 (W) of 2005 in petition before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in WP 13932 (W) of 2005 in petition before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in WP 13932 (W) of 2005 in M/S TIMKEN INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF M/S TIMKEN INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF M/S TIMKEN INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA AND OTHERS. The Hon'ble Calcutta High 8, KOLKATA AND OTHERS. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court by its judgement dated Court by its judgement dated 28.3.2016 was pleased to hold that 28.3.2016 was pleased to hold that s. 44D r/w s. 115A of the Act, provide for a gross basis for taxation of such FTS in the of the Act, provide for a gross basis for taxation of such FTS in the of the Act, provide for a gross basis for taxation of such FTS in the hands of the Assessee, being a non hands of the Assessee, being a non-resident corporate assessee, at the rate of resident corporate assessee, at the rate of 20 per cent of such fees. A similar presumptive basis of taxation on gross 20 per cent of such fees. A similar presumptive basis of taxation on gross 20 per cent of such fees. A similar presumptive basis of taxation on gross basis is contained in Sec.44AC basis is contained in Sec.44AC of the Act and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in of the Act and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. A. Sanyasi Rao & Ors Union of India vs. A. Sanyasi Rao & Ors. 219 ITR 330 (SC) held that . 219 ITR 330 (SC) held that in case of presumptive basis of taxation an option for computation of profits in case of presumptive basis of taxation an option for computation of profits in case of presumptive basis of taxation an option for computation of profits under ss. 28 to 43C 43C of the Act should be read in s. 44D. Similar option should . Similar option should be read into the provision be read into the provisions of Sec.44D of the Act r/w Sec.115A of the Act. If it s of Sec.44D of the Act r/w Sec.115A of the Act. If it is so read, then if it is found that there was no element of mark up in the is so read, then if it is found that there was no element of mark up in the is so read, then if it is found that there was no element of mark up in the charges paid by TIL to the Assessee, there would be no income and there charges paid by TIL to the Assessee, there would be no income and there charges paid by TIL to the Assessee, there would be no income and there would be no income chargeable to tax in the hands of would be no income chargeable to tax in the hands of the Assessee. On the the Assessee. On the above submission, the learned DR's plea was that the decision of the Hon'ble above submission, the learned DR's plea was that the decision of the Hon'ble above submission, the learned DR's plea was that the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has not attained finality and further no such Calcutta High Court has not attained finality and further no such Calcutta High Court has not attained finality and further no such examination regarding absence of mark up on the charges levied by the examination regarding absence of mark up on the charges levied by the examination regarding absence of mark up on the charges levied by the Assessee on TIL has be Assessee on TIL has been undertaken by the revenue authorities. We are of en undertaken by the revenue authorities. We are of the view that this plea of the AR is only academic, in view of our conclusion in the view that this plea of the AR is only academic, in view of our conclusion in the view that this plea of the AR is only academic, in view of our conclusion in paragraph 20 that the receipt in question is not FTS and cannot be charged paragraph 20 that the receipt in question is not FTS and cannot be charged paragraph 20 that the receipt in question is not FTS and cannot be charged to tax in the hands of the Assessee. Nevertheles to tax in the hands of the Assessee. Nevertheless, we are of the view that it s, we are of the view that it would be just and appropriate to direct the AO to examine the claim of the would be just and appropriate to direct the AO to examine the claim of the would be just and appropriate to direct the AO to examine the claim of the Assessee in this regard and if the claim of the Assessee is found to be correct, Assessee in this regard and if the claim of the Assessee is found to be correct, Assessee in this regard and if the claim of the Assessee is found to be correct, 4 Assessment Year: 2008- Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITA No. 1276/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITA No. 1277/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. The Timken Company M/s. The Timken Company then the receipt in question cannot be taxed as FTS. We hold and direc then the receipt in question cannot be taxed as FTS. We hold and direc then the receipt in question cannot be taxed as FTS. We hold and direct accordingly. Thus the relevant grounds of Cross objections by the Assessee accordingly. Thus the relevant grounds of Cross objections by the Assessee accordingly. Thus the relevant grounds of Cross objections by the Assessee are allowed.
Thus, the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT has held that the agreement between the appellant Thus, the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT has held that the agreement between the appellant Thus, the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT has held that the agreement between the appellant and TIL was purely advisory services and such advisory services rendered cannot be and TIL was purely advisory services and such advisory services rendered cannot be and TIL was purely advisory services and such advisory services rendered cannot be treated as fees for included services under Article 12(4)(b) since there is no make available treated as fees for included services under Article 12(4)(b) since there is no make available treated as fees for included services under Article 12(4)(b) since there is no make available of technology.
5. I find that the home office receipts during the year under consideration are I find that the home office receipts during the year under consideration are I find that the home office receipts during the year under consideration are pursuant to the same agreement between the appellant and TIL which pursuant to the same agreement between the appellant and TIL which pursuant to the same agreement between the appellant and TIL which has already been considered by the Hon’ble ITAT while adjudicating the appeals for A.Ys 2002 considered by the Hon’ble ITAT while adjudicating the appeals for A.Ys 2002 considered by the Hon’ble ITAT while adjudicating the appeals for A.Ys 2002-03 to AY 2007-08.
Under these circumstances, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in Under these circumstances, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in Under these circumstances, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in appellants own case for AY 2002 appellants own case for AY 2002-03 to AY 2007-08 in ITA No. 387 & 398/Kol/2010 dated 387 & 398/Kol/2010 dated 29 Nov 2017, the addition on account of home office allocation is 29 Nov 2017, the addition on account of home office allocation is deleted. deleted. These grounds are adjudicated in favour of the appellant are adjudicated in favour of the appellant-company.”
5.2. As the ld. CIT(A) followed the decision of followed the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case on the very same facts on the very same facts, we uphold the same and dismiss this , we uphold the same and dismiss this ground of the revenue for all the Assessment Years. ground of the revenue for all the Assessment Years. 6. 2) Taxability of charge back of receipts: 2) Taxability of charge back of receipts:- 6.1. The assessee had received a The assessee had received an amount of Rs.4,63,63,097/- on account of charge on account of charges from TIL/Timken Engineering and Research India Private Limited (TERI). These from TIL/Timken Engineering and Research India Private Limited (TERI). These from TIL/Timken Engineering and Research India Private Limited (TERI). These receipts were reimbursements of payments made by the assessee to third parties receipts were reimbursements of payments made by the assessee to third parties receipts were reimbursements of payments made by the assessee to third parties towards, provision of various services to TERI, T provision of various services to TERI, TIMPL and TIL. The assessee claimed IMPL and TIL. The assessee claimed that these reimbursements are not taxable. The Assessing Officer was of the view that that these reimbursements are not taxable. The Assessing Officer was of the view that that these reimbursements are not taxable. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the amount in question, is taxable under Article 12 of the DTAA the amount in question, is taxable under Article 12 of the DTAA between between India and USA as fees for technical services. as fees for technical services. The ld. CIT(A) at para 3 to 6 page A) at para 3 to 6 page 49 and 50 held as follows:- “3. It is observed that the similar receipts were also involved in appellants own It is observed that the similar receipts were also involved in appellants own It is observed that the similar receipts were also involved in appellants own case for AY 2002-03 to AY 2007 03 to AY 2007-08 recently on 29.11.2017 adjudicated by the recently on 29.11.2017 adjudicated by the jurisdictional ITAT. The Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT jurisdictional ITAT. The Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT-“C”- has considered all the contentions has considered all the contentions of the appellant and decided the issue in favour of the appellant. The relevant extract of the appellant and decided the issue in favour of the appellant. The relevant extract of the appellant and decided the issue in favour of the appellant. The relevant extract of the ruling is reproduced below: ruling is reproduced below:- 31. We have considered the submission of the learned DR and are of the 31. We have considered the submission of the learned DR and are of the 31. We have considered the submission of the learned DR and are of the view that there is no view that there is no merit in this appeal by the Revenue. A perusal of the merit in this appeal by the Revenue. A perusal of the details in Annexure details in Annexure-3 & 4 to this order would go to show that it was 3 & 4 to this order would go to show that it was 5 Assessment Year: 2008- Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITA No. 1276/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITA No. 1277/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. The Timken Company M/s. The Timken Company third parties who had rendered services to TIL. The actuals billed by the third parties who had rendered services to TIL. The actuals billed by the third parties who had rendered services to TIL. The actuals billed by the third parties were paid by the Assessee in USA and were lat third parties were paid by the Assessee in USA and were lat third parties were paid by the Assessee in USA and were later on reimbursed by TIL to the Assessee in India. We are of the view that there reimbursed by TIL to the Assessee in India. We are of the view that there reimbursed by TIL to the Assessee in India. We are of the view that there is no basis for the AO to conclude that the payment of reimbursements is no basis for the AO to conclude that the payment of reimbursements is no basis for the AO to conclude that the payment of reimbursements were in the nature of FTS. As rightly contended on behalf of the Assessee, were in the nature of FTS. As rightly contended on behalf of the Assessee, were in the nature of FTS. As rightly contended on behalf of the Assessee, the Assessee not the ultimate b the Assessee not the ultimate beneficiary of the sum in question nor did it eneficiary of the sum in question nor did it render any service to TIL. There is no basis on which the AO came to the render any service to TIL. There is no basis on which the AO came to the render any service to TIL. There is no basis on which the AO came to the conclusion that the sum in question was FTS in the hands of the Assessee. conclusion that the sum in question was FTS in the hands of the Assessee. conclusion that the sum in question was FTS in the hands of the Assessee. Even assuming that the sum in question is in the nature of FTS, Even assuming that the sum in question is in the nature of FTS, Even assuming that the sum in question is in the nature of FTS, under Article 12(4)(b) Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA it is only when technical or consultancy of the DTAA it is only when technical or consultancy services rendered by the Assessee makes available technical knowledge, services rendered by the Assessee makes available technical knowledge, services rendered by the Assessee makes available technical knowledge, experience or skill that the sum in question can be taxed in the hands of experience or skill that the sum in question can be taxed in the hands of experience or skill that the sum in question can be taxed in the hands of the Assessee. There is no evidence brought on record to s the Assessee. There is no evidence brought on record to show that the how that the technical skill, knowledge etc., were made available to TIL by the technical skill, knowledge etc., were made available to TIL by the technical skill, knowledge etc., were made available to TIL by the Assessee. At best the sum in question is taxable only in the hands of the Assessee. At best the sum in question is taxable only in the hands of the Assessee. At best the sum in question is taxable only in the hands of the persons who provided the services to TIL and not in the hands of the persons who provided the services to TIL and not in the hands of the persons who provided the services to TIL and not in the hands of the Assessee. The Transfer Pricing Of Assessee. The Transfer Pricing Officer scrutinized the details of ficer scrutinized the details of reimbursements while examining the international transaction of reimbursements while examining the international transaction of reimbursements while examining the international transaction of reimbursement by TIL to the Assessee u/s.92 of the Act and found that reimbursement by TIL to the Assessee u/s.92 of the Act and found that reimbursement by TIL to the Assessee u/s.92 of the Act and found that the Assessee made no profit on such reimbursements and that the the Assessee made no profit on such reimbursements and that the the Assessee made no profit on such reimbursements and that the reimbursements were at Ar reimbursements were at Arm's Length. All these circumstances are m's Length. All these circumstances are sufficient to conclude that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue has to be sufficient to conclude that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue has to be sufficient to conclude that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue has to be upheld. We need not go into the question whether assessment order of upheld. We need not go into the question whether assessment order of upheld. We need not go into the question whether assessment order of the AO in AY 2004 the AO in AY 2004-05 had any influence on the decision of the CIT(A) as 05 had any influence on the decision of the CIT(A) as factually we have come to the conclusion that the sums received by the factually we have come to the conclusion that the sums received by the factually we have come to the conclusion that the sums received by the Assessee in question are pure reimbursements on actual with no mark Assessee in question are pure reimbursements on actual with no mark Assessee in question are pure reimbursements on actual with no mark up. We therefore dismiss the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2002 up. We therefore dismiss the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2002 up. We therefore dismiss the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2002-03 & 2003-04.
4. The Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT has thus The Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT has thus held that the sums received by the appellant in held that the sums received by the appellant in question are pure reimbursements on actual with no mark up and the appellant is not the question are pure reimbursements on actual with no mark up and the appellant is not the question are pure reimbursements on actual with no mark up and the appellant is not the ultimate beneficiary of the sum in question. The appellant has not rendered any service to ultimate beneficiary of the sum in question. The appellant has not rendered any service to ultimate beneficiary of the sum in question. The appellant has not rendered any service to TIL and there is no basis on TIL and there is no basis on which the sum in question can be considered as FTS in the which the sum in question can be considered as FTS in the hands of the appellant. Further, even assuming it is FTS, the services rendered does not hands of the appellant. Further, even assuming it is FTS, the services rendered does not hands of the appellant. Further, even assuming it is FTS, the services rendered does not make available any technical skill, knowledge, etc. to the service recipient. make available any technical skill, knowledge, etc. to the service recipient. make available any technical skill, knowledge, etc. to the service recipient.
The chargeback receipts duri The chargeback receipts during the year under consideration are similar to the ng the year under consideration are similar to the receipts as adjudicated by the Hon’ble Tribunal in AY 2002 receipts as adjudicated by the Hon’ble Tribunal in AY 2002-03 to AY 2007 03 to AY 2007-08. Hence, the above observations of the Hon’ble ITAT are applicable to the AY 2008 above observations of the Hon’ble ITAT are applicable to the AY 2008 above observations of the Hon’ble ITAT are applicable to the AY 2008-09 under consideration. 6. Under these circumsta these circumstances, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in fully following the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in appellants own case for AY 2002 appellants own case for AY 2002-03 to AY 2007-08 in dated 29 Nov 08 in ITA No. 387/Kol/2010 dated 29 Nov 2017, the addition on account of chargeback receipts is 2017, the addition on account of chargeback receipts is deleted.”
6 Assessment Year: 2008- Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITA No. 1276/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITA No. 1277/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. The Timken Company M/s. The Timken Company 6.2. As the ld. CIT(A) has followed the de As the ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own cision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case, on the very same issue, we see no reason to interfere in the same. Hence, we case, on the very same issue, we see no reason to interfere in the same. Hence, we case, on the very same issue, we see no reason to interfere in the same. Hence, we uphold the same and dismiss this ground of the revenue for all the Assessment Years. uphold the same and dismiss this ground of the revenue for all the Assessment Years. uphold the same and dismiss this ground of the revenue for all the Assessment Years.
In the result, all these appeals of the In the result, all these appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Kolkata, the Kolkata, the 19th day of February, 2020. . Sd/- Sd/- [S. S. Godara] [J. Sudhakar Reddy J. Sudhakar Reddy] Judicial Member Accountant Member Accountant Member Dated : 19.02.2020 {SC SPS} Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. 1. M/s. The Timken Company C/o: PriceWaterHouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. C/o: PriceWaterHouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 56 & 57 Block-DN Sector-V Salt Lake City Kolkata – 700 091 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (IT), Circle Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (IT), Circle-2(1), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.
5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.