THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ABBEY BUSINESS SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.433 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION RASHOTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I(1) RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE.

... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. ABBEY BUSINESS SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED THE RESIDENCY, 7TH FLOOR 133/1, RESIDENCY ROAD BANGALORE 560025.

... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HIMANSU SHEKAR SINHA, ADV.,) - - -

2 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 18.07.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.42/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, PRAYING TO:

I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.42/BANG/2011 DATED:18.07.2012 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-I(1), BANGALORE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.Himansu Shekar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 18.07.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law:

3 "a) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the remittance made by the assessee for rendering of services by its ex-patriates to the assessee as per the secondment agreement does not constitute fee for technical services to attract section 9(i)(vii) of the Act, when the ex-patriates were experienced and skilled in their job and recorded a perverse finding? b) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the payments made by the assessee to a non-resident company were in the nature of reimbursement and the same cannot be treated as income chargeable in the hands of non- resident only on the basis of an auditor opinion without taking into consideration the nature of services utilized by the assessee and the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and recorded a perverse finding?" 2. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the aforesaid substantial questions of law have already been answered in favour of the assessee by judgment dated 01.12.2020 passed in ITA Nos.214/2014 and 215/2014.

4 3. Learned counsel for the revenue was unable to point out as to why the aforesaid judgment does not apply to the facts of this case. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and we find that the aforesaid questions of law have already been answered in favour of the assessee by judgment dated 01.12.2020 passed in ITA Nos.214/2014 and 215/2014. 5. For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgment, the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV