Ita/433/2012 Of The Director Of Income Tax v. M/S. Abbey Business Services (India) Private

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 20271 PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR.ILT.A. NO.433 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATIONRASHOTROTHANA BHAVANNRUPATHUNGA ROAD.BANGALORE. RASHOTROTHANA BHAVANNRUPATHUNGA ROAD.BANGALORE. 2. THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX| INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I(1) |RASHTROTHANA BHAVANNRUPATHUNGA ROADBANGALORE.RASHTROTHANA BHAVANNRUPATHUNGA ROADBANGALORE. ... 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. (BY SRI. HIMANSU SHEKAR SINHA, ADV.,) .., RESPONDENT 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, FORTHEASSESSMENTYEAR|2006-07,PRAYING TQ: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW)STATED THEREIN.» II]. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERSPASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.42/BANG/2011—DATED:18.0/7.270172 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLACOMMISSIONER 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 therespondent.| This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has|been filed by the revenue against tne 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 Year2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Courton the following substantial questions of law: ‘a@) Whether the Tribunal was correct inholding that the remittance made by the assessee.for rendering of services by its ex-patriates to theassessee as per the secondment agreement doesnot constitute fee for technical services to attractsection 9(1)(vil) of the Act, when the ex-patriateswere experienced and skilled in their Job andrecorded a perverse finding? D)Whether the Tribunal was correct in|noiding tnat the payments made by the assesseeto a non-resident company were in the nature ofreimbursement and the same cannot be treatedas income chargeable in the hands of non-resident only on the basis of an auditor opinion|without taking into consideration the nature ofservices utilizeqd by the assessee and the findingsrecorded by the Assessing Officer and recorded aperverse finding?” 2. When the matter was taken up today, learnedcounsel for the respondent submitted that the aforesaidsubstantial questions of law have already been answered infavour of the assessee by judgment dated 01.12.2020|passed in ITA Nos.214/2014 and 215/2014. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue was unable to pointout as to why the aforesaid judgment does not apply to thefacts of this case. 4. We nave neard the learned counsel for the parties atlength and we find that the aforesaid questions of law havealready been answered in favour of the assessee byjuagment dated 01.12.2020 passed in ITA Nos.214/2014 and2115/2014. 5. For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgment, tne substantial questions of law are answered against therevenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appealand tne same is hereby dismissed. Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE