EPIC ENERGY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6909/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 August 2018AY 2012-133 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 assessee filed a written submission seeking to withdraw the appeal as they no longer wished to pursue it. The revenue representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13, which partly allowed the AO's order. The appeal concerned the taxation of income earned by the assessee's US branch office.

What were the issues?

Whether the income earned by the assessee's US branch office is taxable in India as per DTAA provisions, and whether relief under Section 90 should be granted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 90

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “L”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 23/08/2018Pronounced: 24/08/2018

आदेश / O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

1.

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2012-13, whereby the Ld. CIT (A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against order passed by the AO u/s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

2.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following effective grounds:-

1. “The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer taxing Income of Rs. 1,89,46,961/- earned by the Branch office of the Appellant in USA, without appreciating that as per DTAA the said income is taxable in USA only and it cannot be taxed in India irrespective of tax position in the USA.

2. The learned CIT (A) erred in denying relief u/s 90 of tax amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- in respect of income earned by Branch office of the Appellant in USA and taxable in USA.

3. The learned CIT (A) erred in denying application of provisions of Double Tax Avoidance Agreement entered into by and between the Government of India and USA vide notification no. GSR 990 (E) dated 20/12/1990 in respect of income earned by the branch office of Appellant in USA.”

3.

Sh. Nikhil Morsawala, Director of the appellant/assessee company has filed an application dated 23.08.2018 seeking permission to withdraw the captioned appeal stating that the assessee does not want to pursue the aforesaid appeal, therefore the assessee may be permitted to withdraw the appeal.

4.

The Ld. departmental representative did not oppose the said application.

5.

Hence, in view of the written request submitted by the assessee company, we allow the withdrawal of the appeal and accordingly dismiss the said appeal as withdrawn. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24th August, 2018.

More judgments on Section 90

All 1,075 judgments and leading authorities on Section 90 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →