Cummins Inc.,, Pune vs Assessee
- CitationITA No.1663/PN/2011
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the assessee's grounds turn on the taxability of consideration for facilitating user rights in software to Indian entities, the issue is decided against the assessee by following the Tribunal's earlier decision of 08.08.2013 in the assessee's own case for assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07, as there is no change in facts and circumstances. Where the assessee has filed a declaration in Form No.8 under section 158A(1) agreeing to be bound by the final decision of the High Court and/or Supreme Court on the identical question pending before them, the Assessing Officer is directed to apply that eventual decision to the assessee's case for this assessment year, notwithstanding that the Tribunal has decided the ground adversely to the assessee.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Cummins Inc, C/o Cummins India Limited, Kothrud, Pune - 38 .... Appellant
PAN: AABCC6225D
Vs.
The Dy. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation-I), Pune .... Respondent
Appellant by : Rajan Vora Respondent by : A.K. Modi Date of hearing : 12-02-2015 Date of pronouncement : 20-02-2015
ORDER
PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Dy.
Director of Income Tax (International Taxation-I), Pune dated
28.10.2011 relating to assessment year 2007-08 passed under section
143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal Nos.1 to 3
against the taxability of consideration received for facilitating grant of
user charges in software to Indian entities as per the provisions of
Indian-US Tax Treaty. The assessee had claimed the said receipt as
exempt from tax in India in its return of income. However, the
Assessing Officer and the Dispute Resolution Panel treated the said
receipt as taxable in India in the hands of the assessee as royalty 2 ITA No.1663/PN/2011 Cummins Inc.
under the provisions of Act and also as well under Article 12 of Double
Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA.
3. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed
out that similar issue arose before Pune Bench of the Tribunal in
assessee's own case relating to assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-
07. It was a common point between the parties that the issue relating
to the taxability in India of consideration received for facilitating grant
of user rights in software to Indian entities was decided against the
assessee by the Tribunal in ITA No.73/PUN/2011 relating to
assessment year 2004-05 and ITA No.74/PUN/2011 relating to
assessment year 2006-07, vide order dated 08.08.2013. The learned
Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that in
the appeal filed by the assessee before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court
against the said order of Tribunal dated 08.08.2013, a substantial
question of law has been framed, but the decision of the Tribunal
dated 08.08.2013 has not been altered by any higher authority. The
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in ITA(L) No.267 of 2014 relating to
assessment year 2004-05 and in ITA(L) No.268 of 2014 relating to
assessment year 2006-07, vide judgment dated 29.01.2014 had
admitted the appeal of the assessee and framed the following
substantial question of law:-
"a. "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income earned by the Appellant was taxable as royalty under Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the United States of America?
b. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not disposing off the without prejudice argument considered by the Appellant that the related support services are not taxable in India as Fees for Included Services under the India-US Tax Treaty?"
3 ITA No.1663/PN/2011 Cummins Inc.
4. The copy of the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court dated
29.01.2014 admitting the aforesaid question of law has been filed on
record. Further, it is a common point between both the Authorized
Representatives that in assessment year 2004-05, the issue of
reopening of assessment has also been admitted for adjudication and
question of law framed, but the said issue does not arise in the present
appeal. In view of the admission of question of law on the issue of
taxability of consideration received by the assessee for facilitating
grant of user rights in software to Indian entities, the assessee filed an
application under section 158A(1) of the Act pointing out that identical
question of law was pending before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court
and the final decision on the said issue be applied, against which, the
assessee would not raise any question of law before the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court and / or Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the
captioned assessment year. The application made by the assessee in
Form No.8 is available on record and copies of the same were
forwarded to the Department. The Assessing Officer vide letter dated
22.12.2014 has on verification of records, admitted that the question
of law involved in the appeal filed before the Hon'ble Bombay High
Court for assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07 were pending for
decision and the assessee's claim was correct. It was further pointed
out that in assessment year 2004-05, there was one more question of
law i.e. re-opening of assessment, which does not arise in the present
assessment year.
5. In view thereof, the issues raised by the assessee vide grounds of
appeal Nos.1 to 3 are decided against the assessee following the
decision of Tribunal (supra), dated 08.08.2013 in assessee's own case
relating to assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07, since there is no 4 ITA No.1663/PN/2011 Cummins Inc.
change in the facts and circumstances. However, in view of the
declaration made by the assessee in prescribed Form No.8 in terms of
section 158A(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is directed to apply
the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and / or Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, on the said issues being decided in assessee's
own case, relating to assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07. The
grounds of appeal Nos.1 to 3 raised by the assessee are accordingly,
dismissed.
6. The ground of appeal No.4 is against the levy of interest under
sections 234B and 234C of the Act, which is consequential and hence,
the same is dismissed.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed,
subject to the aforesaid observations.
Order pronounced on this 20th day of February, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/- (G.S. PANNU) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated: 20 th February, 2015. GCVSR Copy of the order is forwarded to: - 1) The Assessee; 2) The Department; 3) The DRP, Pune; 4) The concerned CIT(A); 5) The CIT concerned; 6) The DR "B" Bench, I.T.A.T., Pune; 7) Guard File. By Order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar I.T.A.T., Pune
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free