Income Tax Appeal v. M/S. Wns Global Services (Uk) Ltd

Sharayu Khot. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 890 OF 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (IT) - 4…Appellant Versus M/s. WNS Global Services (UK) Ltd. …Respondent ALONG WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 891 OF 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (IT) - 4…Appellant Versus M/s. WNS North America Inc.…Respondent ---------- Mr. Tejveer Singh, for the Appellant (in both Appeals). Mr. Hiten Chande, a/w Mr. Atul Jasani, for the Respondent (inboth Appeals). ---------- CORAM :M.S. SANKLECHA &RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATE : 7 February 2018 1/4 8&9-ITXA-890&891-15.doc ORDER : 1.These two Appeals under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) challenge thecommon order dated 13 October 2014 passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal (“The Tribunal” for short). Theimpugned order dated 13 October 2014 disposing these Appealsrelate to the assessment year 2007-08. 2.The Revenue has urged the following questions oflaw for our consideration:- 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law, the Tribunal was justified inholding that reimbursement of lease line chargesby WNS India does not qualify as “Royalty” underArticle 12(3)(b) of the India UK DTAA (IncomeTax Appeal No. 890/15) and India US DTAA(Income Tax Appeal No. 891/15)?the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified inholding that reimbursement of lease line chargesby WNS India does not qualify as “Royalty” underArticle 12(3)(b) of the India UK DTAA (IncomeTax Appeal No. 890/15) and India US DTAA(Income Tax Appeal No. 891/15)? 2/4 8&9-ITXA-890&891-15.doc 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount received asreimbursement of lease line charges is not liable tobe taxed as business profit under Article 7 readwith Article 5 of India UK DTAA (Income TaxAppeal No. 890/15) and India US DTAA (IncomeTax Appeal No. 891/15) in view of the Force ofAttraction Rule? 3.Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel appearing forthe Revenue, very fairly states that the issue raised in both theAppeals stand concluded against the Revenue and in favour ofthe Respondent-Assessee. This in view of the fact that similarquestions raised for assessment year 2004-05 in Income TaxAppeal (L) No. 1130 of 2012 on 13 February 2013 (Director ofIncome Tax Vs. WNC Global Services, UK Ltd.) was notentertained, as it was a finding of fact. 3/4 8&9-ITXA-890&891-15.doc 4.In view of the statement made on behalf of theRevenue, the questions as framed does not give rise to anysubstantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 5.Accordingly, both these Appeals are dismissed. Noorder as to costs. [RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.] [M.S. SANKLECHA, J.] 4/4