THE DY.DIT ( INTL. TAXN. ) - I, AHMEDABAD vs. JOINT STOCK COMPANY ZANGAS, GANDHINAGAR

ITA No. 2365/Ahd/2014 & CO 290/Ahd/2014 DCIT vs. Joint Stock Company Zangas Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 1 of 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and S S Godara JM] ITA No.2365/Ahd/2014 & CO No.290/Ahd/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Director of Income-tax .......…………...........Appellant (International Taxation)-I, Ahmedabad Vs. Joint Stock Company Zangas ........................Respondent & A 4-1, Sector-25, GIDC Estate Cross-Objector Gandhinagar – 382 016 [PAN : AABCJ 6038 K] Appearances by: VK Singh for the appellant Saket Bakshi for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 13.10.2017 Date of pronouncing the order : 26.10.2017 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, AM: 1. This appeal filed by the Assessing Officer, as also the cross objection filed by the assessee, are directed against the order dated 11th June 2014 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income- tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2010-11.

“(i) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that that the Foreign Company did not have any business connection in India. (ii) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the primary responsibility of the execution of the contract was of the assessee. Further the assessee company's responsibility was for the execution of the project right from the review of drawings, project management till the final commissioning of the project. Thus it is evident that the assessee company's role is much more than simply providing technical services thereby the receipts were treated as business income. (iii) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing to treat the income as Fees for Technical Services and tax the same as such.”

ITA No. 2365/Ahd/2014 & CO 290/Ahd/2014 DCIT vs. Joint Stock Company Zangas Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 2 of 2 3. Learned representatives fairly agree that the above issues are squarely covered, in favour of the assessee, by Tribunal’s decisions dated 19.08.2011 and 26.07.2016 in assessee’s own cases, wherein it has been held that the income in question can only be taxed as fees from technical services, and not as business income. Nothing has been brought to our notice by the learned CIT(A) which can justify any departure from the views so expressed by the co-ordinate benches. In view of these discussions, we see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the co-ordinate benches. Learned CIT(A)’s order thus does not call for any interference, as it is on the same lines as the order of the co- ordinate benches, and it specifically follows the same. We confirm the action of the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.

Sd/- Sd/-

S S Godara Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Accountant Member) Ahmedabad, the 26th day of October, 2017 **bt Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation: ......two pages manuscripts of Hon’ble AM attached....typed on 26.10.2017 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member: ... 26.10.2017........ 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S.: ... 26.10.2017.... . 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement:… 26.10.2017... 5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk : 30.10.2017...... 6. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk : ……………………………. 7. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order: ……