DDIT(IT) 4(1), MUMBAI V. LINKLATERS, MUMBAI

ITA 2332/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8598 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: L
• Next Hearing Date: 03-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JASBIR CHOUHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: J D MISTRY
• Keywords: Double taxation relief
• Section: 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL L BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU , AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD , JM ./ I.T.A. NO . 2332 / MUM/ 2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 10 ) DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 4(1) , MUMBAI. / VS. M/S. LINKLATERS (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LINKLATERS & PAINES), C/O DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS, INDIABULLS FINANCE CENTRE, 32 ND FLOOR, MUMBAI 400013 . ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AABFL 2160 M ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI JASBIR CHOUHAN / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.D. MISTRY & SHRI NIRAJ SHETH / DATE OF HEARING : 03/02/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 /02/2017 2 ITA NO. 2332 /MUM/201 4 (A.Y. 2009 - 10 ) M/S. LINKLATERS / O R D E R PER BENCH : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) 10, MUMBAI , DATED 31.10.2013 , ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, (FOR SHORT A CT), DATED 28.12.2011. 1. THE REVENUE ASSAILING THE RELIEF GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE CIT(A), HAD FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US , RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - I. O N THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GIVING R ELIEF IN RESPECT OF THE DISBURSEMENT, PARTICULARLY WHEN COMP L ETE DETAILS WERE NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. II. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TAXABLE IN RESPECT OF ONLY THAT PORTION OF INCOME THAT WAS RELATED TO THE SERVICE PERFORMED IN INDIA. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FORCE OF ATTRACTION PRINCIPLE IN ARTICLE 7 OF THE INDO UK DTAA. III. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ER RED IN HOLDING THAT THE INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WAS NOT CHARGEABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE CASE OF A NON RESIDENT ASSESSEE, ALL SUMS CHARGEABLE TO TAX ARE LIABLE TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 195 OF THE IT AC T. 3 ITA NO. 2332 /MUM/201 4 (A.Y. 2009 - 10 ) M/S. LINKLATERS IV. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DENIED BENEFIT OF THE INDO UK DTAA AS THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM IN THE UK WHERE IT IS NOT TAXED. HENCE, IT IS NOT A RESIDENT OF UK UNDER THE SAID DTAA. THE ENTIRE INCOME WOULD BE, TH U S, LIABLE TO TAXATION AS PER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. V. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 2. THAT AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSE E (FOR SHORT A . R ) SUBM ITTED THAT ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WERE COVERED IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE T RIBUNAL INVOLVING THE SAME ISSUES IN THE OTHER YEARS. THE GROUN D S OF APPEAL SO RAISED BY THE RE VENUE BEFORE US ARE TAKEN UP IN A CHRONOLOGICAL MANNER, AS UNDER: - GROUND NO. (I) THE LD. A.R ADVERTING TO GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 , WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAD CHALLENGED THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF DISBURSEMENT EXPENSES , THEREIN SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION OF 104 , 045 EQUIVALENT TO RS. 74,92,280/ - PERTAINING TO REIMBURSEMENT EXPENDITURE A FTER DULY APPRECIATING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE IS NOT INCOME , THEREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE B ROUGHT TO TAX. THE CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE AFORESAID ADDITION HAD RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 1995 - 96, TITLED AS LINKLATERS LLP VS ITO , INTERNATIONAL TAX, BOMBAY ( ITA NO. 4896 AND 5085) (MUMBAI) 4 ITA NO. 2332 /MUM/201 4 (A.Y. 2009 - 10 ) M/S. LINKLATERS OF 2003 ; DATED 16 TH JULY, 2010 , WHEREIN THE T RIBUNAL DE ALING WITH THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE HAD THEREIN HELD AS UNDER: THE REIMBURSEMENT S RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IN RESPECT OF SPECIFIC AND ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSES SEE AND DO NOT INVOLVE ANY MARK UP, THE R E IS REASONABLE CONTROL MECHANISM IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT THESE CLAIMS ARE NOT INFLATED, AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THE INCURRING OF EXPENSES. THERE IS THUS NO GOOD REASON TO MA KE ANY ADDITION TO INCOME IN RESPECT OF THESE REIMBURSEMENTS OF EXPENSES. THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) , AS LEARNED COUNSEL RIGHTLY CONTENDS, ON PURE SURMISE AND CONJECTURES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE DISALL OWANCE OF EXPENSES AS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) AND HOLD THAT NO PART OF REIMBURSEMENTS OF EXPENSES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, O N THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY TH E LD. A.R THAT THEREAFTER SIMILAR FINDING ON THE AFORESAID ISSUE PERTAINING TO REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE HAD CONSISTENTLY BEEN ADOPTED BY THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSSESSEE FOR THE SUCCEEDING YEARS, AS UNDER: - PARTICULARS ASSESSMENT YEAR TR I B U NA L VIDE ITS ORDER , DATED : 7 TH MAY, 2014. ( ITA NO. 5730/M/03 AND 6557/M/03 ) 1996 - 97 TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER , DATED : 8 TH AUGUST, 2014. ( ITA NO. 1711/M/04 AND 1354/M/04 ) 1997 - 98 TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER , DATED : SEPTEMBER 7, 1998 - 99 TO 2001 - 02 5 ITA NO. 2332 /MUM/201 4 (A.Y. 2009 - 10 ) M/S. LINKLATERS 2015. ( ITA NO. 1355 - 57/M/04, 2812/M/05, 1712 - 1714/M/04, 3596/M/05 ). TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER , DATED : DECEMBER 16, 2015. ( ITA NOS. 897/M/07, 3185/M/10, 1532/M/07, 4908/M/10 ). 2003 - 04 AND 2007 - 08 4. THAT ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D . R) COULD NO T TAKE US TO THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FROM WHERE IT COULD BE GATHERED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS AS REGARDS THE DISBURSEMENT EXPENSES DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , AS HAD BEEN SO AVERRED BY THE REVENUE IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 SO RAISED BEFORE US. THUS FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AFORESAID YEARS , WE HEREIN UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. (I) SO RAISED BY T HE REVENUE IS THUS DISMISS ED . GROUND NO. (II) 5. THAT AS REGARDS THE AFORESAID GROUND OF APPEAL , WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAD CLAIMED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSSESSEE WAS TAXABLE IN RESPECT OF ONLY THAT PORTION OF INCOME THAT WAS RELATE D TO THE SERVICE PERFORMED IN INDIA, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE SAID GROUND OF APPEAL SO RAISED BY THE REVENUE WAS ABSOLUTELY MISCONCEIVED AND DID NOT ARISE FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS A MATTER OF FACT THE CIT(A) HAD DISMISSED THE GROUND OF APPEAL ON THE SAID ISSUE AS WAS SO RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM , AND HAD HELD THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME FROM SERVICE RENDERED IN AND OUTSIDE INDIA WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE 6 ITA NO. 2332 /MUM/201 4 (A.Y. 2009 - 10 ) M/S. LINKLATERS ASSESSEE. IT WAS AVERRED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE AFORESAID ISSUE HAD HOWEVER BEEN SETTLED BY THE T RIBUNAL IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE , IN THE FOLLOWING CASES : PARTICULARS OF ORDER ASSESSMENT YEARS MA ORDER , DATED : FEBRUARY 20, 2015. ( MA NO. 392/M/14 ). 1997 - 98 TRIBUNAL ORD ER , DATED: SEPTEMBER 7, 2015. ( ITA NO 1355 - 57/M/04, 2812/M/05, 1712 - 1714/M/04 AND 3596/M/05 ). 1998 - 99 TO 2001 - 02 TRIBUNAL ORDER , DATED : DECEMBER 16, 2015. ( ITA NOS. 897/M/07, 3185/M/10, 1532/M/07, 4908/M/10 ). 2003 - 04 AND 2007 - 08 THE LD. A.R FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT THE SAID ISSUE WAS EVEN OTHERWISE COVERED IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE S PECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ADIT VS CLIFFORD CHANCE, BOMBAY ( 143 ITD 1) . IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. A.R FU RTHER POINTED OU T THAT THE SOLE ISSUE WHICH HAD WEIGHED IN THE MIND OF THE CIT(A) WHILE ADJUDICATING THE SAME AGAINST THE ASSESSES WAS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALREADY DECIDED THE SAID ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CASE FOR A.Y. 1 995 - 96 . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE L D. A.R THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SUCCEEDING YEARS HAD FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE S PECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CLIFFORD CHANCE ( S UPRA) , AND HAD CONSISTENTLY DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOR OF THE AS SESS E E. IT WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OF THE MISC. APPLICATION NO. 392/MUM/2014 , ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1711/MUM/2004 OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 19 97 - 98 , AFTER TAKING DUE COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE SAID ISSUE HAD EARLIER BEEN DECIDED BY THE C O - 7 ITA NO. 2332 /MUM/201 4 (A.Y. 2009 - 10 ) M/S. LINKLATERS ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 19 95 - 96 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER GOING BY THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF : CLIFFORD CHANCE (SUPRA) , HAD T HEREIN ALLOWED THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THAT ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D . R RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THEREIN SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION MAY THEREIN BY SET ASIDE. 6. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND AFTER PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD FIND THAT THE PRESENT ISSUE AS REGARDS THIS SCOPE AND GAMUT OF TAXABILITY OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM SERVICES RENDERED IN AND OUTSIDE INDIA HAD ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE AFOREMENTIONED CASES . WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCHOF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF : CIT VS. CLIFFORD CHANCE (143 ITD 1) , HAD ALLOWED THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN A.Y. 19 97 - 98 , THEREIN HOLDING AS UNDER: - W E SHALL NOW TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE GROUNDS NUMBERED AS 1 & 4 RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT O F PROFE SSIONAL RECEIPTS. THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSESSED THE ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WE NOTICE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT ONLY THAT PORTION OF THE INCOME RELATING TO THE SERVICES PREFORMED IN INDI A ALONE IS ASS ESSABLE UNDER THE ACT . BOTH THE PARTIES ADMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED IDENTICAL ISSUE IN A.Y. 1995 - 96 AND HAS HELD THAT THE ENTIRE PROFITS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE P ERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IS ASSESSABLE AND ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE 8 ITA NO. 2332 /MUM/201 4 (A.Y. 2009 - 10 ) M/S. LINKLATERS ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT YEAR. HOWEVER, THE LD. A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS CLIFFORD CHANCE (143 ITD 1) , WHEREIN THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE UPHELD. WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD A.R . SINCE THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH IS BINDING ON US, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS THE INCOME IN ACCO RDANCE WITH THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE ABOVE CITED CASE. ACCORDINGLY WE REJECT THE GROUND URGED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE. 7. THUS FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL , WE HEREIN RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN LIGHT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SUBSEQUENT ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL SO PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THUS DISPOSED OF IN LIGHT OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATI ONS. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. (III) 8. THAT AS REGARDS, THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT INTEREST U/S 234 B OF THE ACT WAS NOT CHARGEABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE , ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE CASE OF A NON - RESIDENT ASSESSEE ALL SUMS CHARGEABLE TO TAX ARE LIABLE TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 195 OF THE A CT , IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE CIT(A) HAD DECIDED THE SAID ISSUE IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESEE BY RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SO PASSED IN THE C ASE OF THE ASSSESSEE FOR A.Y. 19 95 - 96 , WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL TAKING NOTE OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF DIT VS NGC NETWORK ASIA LLC (313 ITR 187) (BOMBAY) , THEREIN H E LD AS UNDER: 9 ITA NO. 2332 /MUM/201 4 (A.Y. 2009 - 10 ) M/S. LINKLATERS RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ESTEEMED VIEW S OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NGC NETWORK ASIA LLC (SUPRA), WE APPROVE THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A)AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE ON THE MATTER ON THIS COUNT AS WELL. GROUND NO. 1 O ASSESSING OFFICER IS THUS REJECTED. PARTICULARS ASSES SMENT YEAR TR I BUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER , DATED : 9 TH JULY , 2014. ( ITA NO. 6557/M/03 ). 1996 - 97 TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER , DATED : 8 TH AUGUST, 2014. ( ITA NO. 1711/M/04 AND 1354/M/04 ). 1997 - 98 TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER , DATED : SEPTEMBER 7, 2015. ( ITA NO. 1355 - 57/M/0 4, 2812/M/05, 1712 - 1714/M/04, 3596/M/05 ). 1998 - 99, 2001 - 02 TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER , DATED : DECEMBER 16, 2015. ( ITA NOS. 897/M/07, 3185/M/10, 1532/M/07, 4908/M/10 ). 2003 - 04 AND 2007 - 08 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS THE ISSUE PERTAINING TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234 B IN THE CASE OF NON - RESIDENT ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NGC NETWORK ASIA ( S UPRA) , WHICH THEREAFT ER HAD CONSISTENTLY BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE C OORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL , WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE SAID I SSUE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. ( III ) OF THE REVENUE IS THUS DISMISSED. 10 ITA NO. 2332 /MUM/201 4 (A.Y. 2009 - 10 ) M/S. LINKLATERS GROUND OF APPEAL NO. (IV) 10. THAT AS REGARDS THE CON TENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN ALLOWING TO THE ASSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF THE INDO UK DTAA , AS THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM IN UK WHERE IT IS NOT TAXED, AS A RESULT WHEREOF ITS ENTIRE INCOME WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED AS PER THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961, IT WAS AT THE VERY OUTSET SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE SAID ISSUE IS CLEARLY COVERED BY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL , IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE, IN T HE LATTERS OWN CASE S FOR PRE CEDING YEARS , AS UNDER : PARTICULARS ASSESSMENT YEAR TR I BUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER , DATED : 16 TH JULY, 2010. ( ITA NO. 4896/M/03 AND 5085/M/03 ) 1995 - 96 TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER , DATED 8 TH AUGUST, 2014. ( ITA NO. 1711/M/04 AND 1354/M/04 ) 1997 - 98 TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER, DATED SEPTEMBER 7, 2015. ( ITA NO. 1355 - 57/M/ 04, 2812/M/05, 1712 - 1717/M/04, 3596/M/05 ). 1998 - 99 TO 2001 - 02 THAT O N THE OTHER HAND , THE LD. D . R RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE UPHELD AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES , PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND FIND THAT THE ISSUE AS REGARDS THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM BENEFIT OF INDO UK DTAA ALREADY STANDS ADJUDICATED BY THE C OORDINATE B ENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ITAT, L BENCH , WHILE DISPOSING OF THE 11 ITA NO. 2332 /MUM/201 4 (A.Y. 2009 - 10 ) M/S. LINKLATERS APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 1998 - 99 TO 2001 - 02, RELYING ON ITS EARLIER ORDERS SO PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 1995 - 96 , AS REGARDS THE ISSUE UNDER CONSID ERATION , HAD HELD AS UNDER: LASTLY , REGARDING GROUND NO . 5 RELATING TO DEN IAL OF BENEFIT UNDER INDO UK DTAA, IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED THAT THE TREATY BENEFIT OF INDO UK DTAA HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER YEARS, THEREFORE , IN A.Y. 1995 - 96 , THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONCLUDED IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FOLLOWING M ANNER: - IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS , AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND THE ENTIRETY OF THE CASE , WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INDEED ELIGIBLE TO THE BENEFITS OF INDIA - UK TAX TREATY, AS LONG AS ENTIRE PROFITS AND THE PARTNERSHIP F I RM ARE TAXED IN UK WHETHER I N THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM THOUGH THE TAXABLE INCOME IS DETERMINED IN RELATION TO THE PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PARTNERS, OR IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS DIRECTLY. TO THAT EXTENT, OBJECTION TAKEN BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE , O N THE QUESTION OF ADMISSIBILITY OF INDIA - UK TAX TREATY BENEFITS , IS HELD AS MAINTAINABLE BUT REJECTED ON MERITS . 12. THAT IN LIGHT OF THE ORDERS SO PASSED BY THE CO ORDINATE B ENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PR E CEDING YEARS AS REGARD S THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE HEREIN FOLLOW ING THE SAME THUS UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) TO THE SAID EXTENT. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. ( IV ) SO RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THUS DISMISSED. 12 ITA NO. 2332 /MUM/201 4 (A.Y. 2009 - 10 ) M/S. LINKLATERS GROUND OF APPEAL NO. V : 13 THAT AS THE SAID GROUND OF APPEA L IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND THE SAME DURING T H E COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL HAD NOT BEEN ADVERTED TO BY THE LD. D.R , THEREFORE THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 14. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS THUS DISMISSED , IN TERMS OF OUR OBSERVATIONS RECOR DED HEREINABOVE. ORD ER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 / 02/2017 SD/ - SD/ - ( G.S PANNU ) ( RAVISH SOOD ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 08 . 02.2017 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. () / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / D.R , ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F I L E / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI