Raytheon Ebasco Overseas Ltd, Bangalore vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed
ITA 2609/MUM/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2016AY 1998-99
Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ramlal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2609/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1998-99) Raytheon Ebasco Overseas Ltd. Dy. Dit (It)-2(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 120, Scindia C/O. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private बनाम/ Limited, 6Th Floor, Tower D, House, Ballard Estate, Nariman Vs. The Millenia, 1 & 2 Murphy Road, Point, Mumbai-400 038 Ulsoor, Bangalore-560 008 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcr 0222 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jahir Chauhan सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.5.2016 Date Of Hearing : 20.5.2016 Date Of Order आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Contesting The Confirmation Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) In The Assessee’S Case For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 1998-99 Vide Order Dated 28.2.2013. 2. At The Very Outset, It Was Submitted By The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ar), The Assessee’S Counsel, Shri Dinesh Bafna, That The Matter Stands Since Settled In The Assessee’S Favour In-As-Much As The Tribunal Has, Accepting The Assessee’S Case That The Impugned Receipt, I.E., Against The Services Rendered, Is Not A Fees For Included Services (Fis) As Per The Provisions Of Article 12 Of Double Taxation Avoidance
For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Jahir Chauhan
Section 271(1)(c)
…essentially in the nature of start-up services and sale of equipment. The twin test required to satisfy the condition of ‘make available’ specified in Article 12 afore-referred, as laid down in the decision in CIT vs. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd. [2012] 346 ITR 467 (Kar), is not met. The impugned receipt is accordingly not taxable. Toward this, he would take us to the relevant part (para 6 onwards) of the tribunal’s order, placing a copy of the same on record (in ITA No. 8567/Mum/2011 dated 11.3.2016). The appeal of the assessee having been allowed by the tribunal thus, the penalty would not survive. The ld…
