M/S Buro Happold Ltd, Mumbai DCIT(IT)-1(3)(2), Mumbai

Last updated: 02 January 2021

Save Share

Quick Summary

This Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruling addresses the taxability of common cost recharge for M/s. Buro Happold Ltd. The core issue is whether these charges should be classified as Royalty or Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 13 of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The appeal challenges the decisions made by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the Assessing Officer.

Court :
ITAT Mumbai

Brief :
This appeal in ITA No.834/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2015-16 preferred by the order against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 28/11/2018 u/s.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act 1961, hereinafter referred to as Act, pursuant to the directions of the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-1(WZ), Mumbai (DRP in short) u/s.144C(5) of the Act,1961 dated 04/09/2018 for the A.Y.2015-16

Citation :
ITA No.834/Mum/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM
&
SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM

ITA No.834/Mum/2019
(Assessment Year :2015-16)

M/s. Buro Happold Ltd., Famous Studio Lane Dr. E Moses Road Mahalaxmi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400001
PAN/GIR No.AABCB9239Q
(Appellant)

Vs.

DCIT(IT)-1(3)(2) Mumbai
(Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala - AR
Revenue by Shri Sanjay Singh – CIT DR
Date of Hearing 27/08/2020 & 18/12/2020
Date of Pronouncement 30/12/2020

O R D E R

PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

This appeal in ITA No.834/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2015-16 preferred by the order against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 28/11/2018 u/s.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act 1961, hereinafter referred to as Act, pursuant to the directions of the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-1(WZ), Mumbai (DRP in short) u/s.144C(5) of the Act,1961 dated 04/09/2018 for the A.Y.2015-16

2. The assessee had raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. Ground No.1- Taxability of amount received as common cost recharge as Royalty and fees for technical services (FTS)

1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP(Dispute Resolution Panel) and DCIT have erred in considering common cost recharge as royalty and Fees for technical services (FTS) as per Article 13 of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement („DTAA‟)

To know more in details find the attachment file

FAQ :

The main issue is the taxability of amounts received as common cost recharge, specifically whether these should be treated as Royalty or Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

Article 13 of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is relevant to this case, as it deals with the classification of income as Royalty and Fees for Technical Services (FTS).

M/s. Buro Happold Ltd is appealing the decision made by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the DCIT (Dispute Resolution Panel and Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax).

The assessment year for this appeal is 2015-16.

Attached File : 40_3026_1609394200_ita_no_834_2019_buro_happold_ltd_1_.pdf

downloaded 291 times