TEEJAY INDIA PVT LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 154/VIZ/2022Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 July 2023AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal directed that in the previous order, the term 'Technical Support Service Fee' should be replaced with 'Royalty' wherever it appears. Additionally, an omitted sentence was inserted into a paragraph concerning the remittance of the matter back to the TPO.

What were the facts?

The assessee pointed out a typographical error in a previous ITAT order where 'Technical Support Service Fee' was used instead of 'Royalty'. The tribunal reviewed the record and agreed that it was an inadvertent mistake.

What were the issues?

Correction of a typographical error in a previous order and insertion of an omitted sentence to clarify the tribunal's directions to the TPO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not specified

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE

PER S. BALAKRISHNAN, Accountant Member :

1.

The above captioned appeals were disposed off by the Tribunal vide order dated 23/01/2023. It is now brought to our notice by the assessee that at para 14 of the said order wherever the four words “Technical Support Service Fee” appear, these words should be replaced by “Royalty” because the relevant Ground raised by the assessee relates to “disallowance of Royalty Fee paid” and not the Technical Support Service Fee”.

2.

On perusal of the record, we find it to be an inadvertent typographical mistake that has crept into the Order while mentioning the word “Royalty”. Hence the assessee’s prayer is justified. Therefore, we hereby hold that at para 14 of the Tribunal’s order, dated 23/01/2023 wherever the four words “Technical Support Service Fee” appear, these words shall read as “Royalty” instead of “Technical Support Service Fee”.

2 3. Further, in the same Tribunal order (supra), we find that some omission has crept in inadvertently. The original para 18 at page no. 19 of the Tribunal’s order dated 23/01/2023 reads as under:

“18. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find merit in the argument of the Ld. AR and we are of the considered view that it would be deemed fit to remit the matter back to the Ld. TPO to decide the case on merits subject to final outcome of the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) with CBDT by the assessee. We therefore allow these Grounds No.6 raised by the assessee for statistical purposes.”

4.

After insertion of the omitted sentence, the said para 18 of the Tribunal order shall read as under: “18. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find merit in the argument of the Ld. AR and we are of the considered view that it would be deemed fit to remit the matter back to the Ld. TPO to decide the case on merits subject to final outcome of the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) with CBDT by the assessee. We hereby direct the Ld. TPO to exclude the Royalty fee transactions benchmarked as per the APA from the operating cost for the purpose of computation of operating margin. We therefore allow these Grounds No.6 raised by the assessee for statistical purposes.”

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →