UBS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1522/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 August 2018AY 2011-123 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 permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as not pressed.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought to withdraw their appeal due to the small quantum of additions and the high cost of litigation. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to the small tax effect and high litigation costs, despite believing they had a strong case on merits regarding the re-computation of Arm's Length Price for support services.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2011-12 contest the final assessment order passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. Auhtorized Representative for Assessee [AR], at the outset sought permission of the bench to withdraw the appeal due to smallness of the quantum additions as agitated by the assessee under the appeal.

IT [TP] A.No.1522/Mum/2016 UBS (India) Private Limited Assessment Year-2011-12 The written request dated 24/08/2018, in this regard, has been placed before us, the contents of which are extracted below:-

Re : UBS (India) Private Limited (“the Company” or “we” “us”) Arising out of ITA No.: 1522/Mum-2016 Assessment Year (‘AY’): 2011-12 The captioned appeal filed by us against the order the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(3)(1), Mumbai is fixed for hearing before the Hon’ble ‘K’ Bench on 28 August 2018. In this connection, we wish to submit that as the tax effect on the quantum involved in the appeal is small and the likely efforts / costs involved in litigating the same are high, the management is desirous of withdrawing the appeal. However, we reserve the right to contest the issue in subsequent years (if any) and the withdrawing of appeal should not be construed as acceptance of the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – 14(3)(1) on the issues involved. Further, the Appellant strongly believes that the DRP/ AO/TPO erred in re- computing the Arm’s Length Price of the international transaction of support services (paid) amounting to Rs.9,54,514/- as ‘NIL’ even though a detailed documentation and evidences was submitted in support of the services received. More so the adjustment was not warranted, since there was no tax base erosion and no loss to the revenue, considering the fact that such charges are taxable in India in the hands of the recipient entity. Accordingly, in spite of a strong case to argue on merits, in the interest of small tax effect involved and high cost of litigation, the management request Your Honours to kindly permit us to withdraw the appeal filed by us. The inconvenience caused to Your Honours is regretted.

No objection against the withdrawal has been raised by the revenue.

IT [TP] A.No.1522/Mum/2016 UBS (India) Private Limited Assessment Year-2011-12 3. Considering the same, the appeal stand dismissed in limine as being not pressed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th August, 2018.

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →