DCIT (IT) 3.1.2, INCOME TAX OFFICE, KAUTILIYA BHAWAN vs. LINKLATERS AND PAINES, MUMBAI

O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the order dated 22.07.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section

Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that assessee can be treated as resident of United Kingdom within the meaning of DTAA between India and UK despite the fact that it is fiscally transparent entity in UK and hence not taxable in the UK? ii. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the income of the assessee is not taxable in India as it is not having any permanent establishment in term of Article 5(2)(k)(i), without considering that the receipts of the assessee is fees for technical services as per meaning of section 9(1)(vil). Explanation 2 and therefore is taxable on gross basis under section 115A of the Income Tax Act. iii. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CII(A) is justified in holding that receipts from consultancy services does not fall in the category of fee for technical services under India-UK DTAA, without considering that the provision of DTAA between India and UK are not available to the assessee as it is not a 'person' as per Article 3(1)(f) of the DTAA and is not a resident of any of the two contracting States within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the DTAA and was not Hable to taxation in the UK iv. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) is justified in holding that the income from services earned by the Linklaters and Paines assessee is not taxable due to absence of PE despite the provision of Explanation to section 9.