LINKLATERS LLP, MUMBAI V. DCIT (IT) 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6846/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8154 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S.E. DASTUR
• Keywords: Business income; Double taxation relief; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 201; 144C; 13

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I, MUMBAI , ! ,'# '$ BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.K.PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . 6846 / /201 8 (. . 2015-16 ) ITA NO.6846/MUM/2018 (A.Y.2015-16) LINKLATERS LLP, C/O.DELLOITE HASKINS 7 SELLS LLP, TOWER 3, 27-32 FLOOR, INDIABULLS FINANCE CENTRE, ELPHINSTONE MILL COMPOUND, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, ELPHINSTONE (WEST) MUMBAI 400013 PAN: AABCL 5182G ...... , / APPELLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 3(1)(2), ROOM NO.1603, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021 ..... !-/ RESPONDENT ,./ APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.E. DASTUR SR. ADVOCA TE WITH SHRI NIRAJ SHETH !-./ RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJAY SINGH /- / DATE OF HEARING : 16/03/2020 012 /- / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/06/2020 '/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 01/10/2018 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C (13) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2015-16. 2 ITA NO.6846/MUM/2018(A.Y.2014-15) 2. SHRI S.E. DASTUR, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM IN CORPORATED IN UNITED KINGDOM. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES . THE ASSESSEE IS A TAX RESIDENT OF UNITED KINGDOM AND IS NOT HAVING ANY PE RMANENT ESTABLISHMENT (PE) IN INDIA. BEING A NON-RESIDENT, THE ASSESSEE I S ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS UNDER INDIA UK DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE TREATY ( DTAA). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW H AVE ERRED IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AS IF THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDI VIDUAL RESIDENT. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM IT HAS A DISTINCT IDENTITY. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FURTHER ERRED IN COMING TO T HE CONCLUSION THAT THE REMUNERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM PROVISIO N OF LEGAL SERVICES IS IN NATURE OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES (FTS) WITHIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSE 13(4)(C) OF INDIA UK DTAA. 2.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T THOUGH IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE ASSESSE HAS RAISED MULTIPLE GROUNDS, HOW EVER, THE PRIMARY ISSUES THAT WOULD EMERGE FROM THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE PR ESENT APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION ARE:- (I) WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF DTAA OR THE PROVISI ONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WOULD APPLY IN THE FACTS OF PRESENT CAS E? (II) WHETHER THE REMUNERATION RECEIVED BY ASSESSE E FOR PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES IS IN THE NATURE OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES? (III) WHETHER THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TAXABLE UNDER ARTICLE-15 OF INDIA UK DTAA? (IV) WHETHER THE ASSESSE HAS PERMANENT ESTABLISHME NT (PE) IN INDIA? 3 ITA NO.6846/MUM/2018(A.Y.2014-15) 2.2. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE WHETH ER THE ASSESSE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF INDIA-UK DTAA WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN AY 2011-12 IN ITA NO. 1690/MUM/2015 DECIDED ON 31-0 1-2017. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ASSESSE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM BENEFIT UNDER DTAA. 2.3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12, 2012-13 AND 2013-14 ADDITIONS FOR SIMILAR REASONS WERE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE. THE REVENUE HAS BEEN CONSISTE NTLY HOLDING LEGAL FEES CHARGED BY ASSESSE AS FTS. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED T HE ISSUE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1690/MUM/2015 (SUPRA). THE TRIBU NAL HELD THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF F TS AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 13 OF INDIA-UK DTAA. THEREAFTER, IN SUBSEQUENT AYS THE TR IBUNAL HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY TAKING SAME VIEW. 2.4. THE LD. COUNSEL ASSERTED THAT THE INCOME OF AS SESSEE IS NEITHER TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME, AS THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN ARTICLE-7 OF THE DTAA ARE NOT SATISFIED. THE ASSESSE HAS NO PE IN IN DIA. ARTICLE 5 OF THE DTAA DEFINES PE. THE ASSESSE DOES NOT FALL IN ANY OF THE SPECIFIED CONDITIONS THAT WOULD BRINGS THE ESTABLISHMENT WITHIN THE REALM OF PE. AS PER CLAUSE (2) SUB- CLAUSE (K)(I) OF ARTICLE 5, TO HAVE PE IN INDIA, TH E MINIMUM PERIOD OF STAY OF PERSONNEL/EMPLOYEES IN INDIA SHOULD EXCEED 90 DAYS IN THE PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 10/11/2017 H AD INFORMED THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE STAY OF PERSONNEL/EMPLOY EES OF ASSESSEE DURING 12 MONTHS PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-1 5 IS LESS THAN 90 DAYS. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT VIDE SAME COMMUN ICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE NAMES OF THE PERSONNEL, THEIR PERIOD OF STAY AND THE CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF DAYS THEY STAYED IN INDIA DURING FINANCIA L YEAR 2014-15. THE TOTAL 4 ITA NO.6846/MUM/2018(A.Y.2014-15) DURATION OF STAY OF PERSONNEL/EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSE SSEE IN INDIA DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD IS ONLY SIX DAYS. THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2.5. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS REGA RDS APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 15 OF DTAA, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1690/MUM/2015 (S UPRA) HELD THAT SINCE ASSESSE IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL, THE PROVISIONS OF ART ICLE 15 ARE NOT ATTRACTED. 2.6. THE LD. COUNSEL POINTED THAT ALL THE ISSUES RA ISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PRE CEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER EXAMINING T HE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION HAS DECIDED ALL PRIMARY ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSE IN APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL I.E. ITA NO.1540/MUM/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2012-13 DECIDED ON 29-8-2018 AND ITA NO. 969/MUM/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR NO.2013-14 DECIDED ON 21-6-2019. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF THE ORDERS OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1690/MUM/2015, ITA NO.1540/MUM/2016 AND ITA NO.969/MUM/2017 (SUPRA). 3. SHRI SANJAY SINGH, REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT V EHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPE AL BY THE ASSESSEE WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRE CEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER CONTEND ED THAT IN SO FAR AS THE ISSUE OF TREATING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS BUSINE SS INCOME UNDER ARTICLE-7 OF THE DTAA, TO EXAMINE ASSESSEES PE STATUS, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO VERIFY DURATION OF TOTAL PERIOD OF STAY OF THE ASSESSEES EMPLOYEES/PERSONNEL IN INDIA. THE ISSUE CAN BE RESTORED TO ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. 5 ITA NO.6846/MUM/2018(A.Y.2014-15) 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY RIVAL SIDE S AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE IN A PPEAL HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 39 GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED AT THE BAR THAT THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATI ON OF THE APPEAL WOULD BE 8 TO 25 AND 30 TO 33 OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE OT HER GROUNDS I.E. GROUND NO.1 TO7, 26 TO 29 AND 34 TO 39 ARE EITHER GENERAL IN NATURE OR ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE MAIN GROUNDS MENTIONED ABOVE. 5. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS ARGUED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE CONCISED AND GROUPED TOGETHER AS UNDER: A. IN GROUND NO.13 TO 15 THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED ASSESSMENT ORDER IN DENYING THE BENEFIT OF INDIA- UK TAX TREATY TO T HE ASSESSEE. B. IN GROUND NO.16 TO 18 THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE FINDING OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS H AVING PE IN INDIA WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE-5 OF INDIA UK DTAA. C. IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.19 TO 25 READ ALONG WITH GROUND NO.8 TO 12 OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE REMUNERATIONS REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RENDERING LEGAL SERVICES AS FEE FOR T ECHNICAL SERVICES UNDER INDIA UK DTAA. D. IN GROUND NO.30 TO 33, THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN HOLDING THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS TAXABLE UNDER ARTICLE-15 OF INDIA UK DTAA. 6 ITA NO.6846/MUM/2018(A.Y.2014-15) 6. THE ASSESSE IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING LEGAL SERVIC ES. THE SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN INDIA AND OUTSIDE INDIA DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD ARE AS UNDER: INCOME IN RESPECT OF SERVICES RENDERED IN INDIA: RS.79,11886/- INCOME IN RESPECT OF SERVICES RENDERED OUTSIDE IND IA: RS. 7,19,455/- TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENTS: RS. 4,98,494/- TOTAL RS.91,29,836/- THE REVENUE HELD THAT THE RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSE A RE IN THE NATURE OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AND THE ASSESSE IS HAVING PE IN INDIA THEREFORE, THE AFORESAID RECEIPTS ARE TAXABLE IN INDIA. WHEREAS, P LEA OF THE ASSESSE IS THAT, THE ABOVE RECEIPTS ARE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA, AS THE ASSESSE IS PROTECTED BY INDIA- UK DTAA. FURTHER, THE ASSESSE HAS NO PE IN I NDIA. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE RE CURRING IN NATURE AND WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1690/MUM/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, IN ITA NO. 1540/MUM/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND ITA NO.969/MUM/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. ON APPLICABILITY OF INDIA-UK DTAA & WHETHER THE REMU NERATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSE ARE IN THE NATURE OF FTS: 7. IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E . A.Y. 2013-14, THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT VS DTAA IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND ALSO WHETHER THE R EMUNERATION RECEIVED BY 7 ITA NO.6846/MUM/2018(A.Y.2014-15) THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE NATURE OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES OR NOT. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISS UE ARE AS UNDER:- 12. IN GROUNDS NO.13 TO 15, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALL ENGED THE DENIAL OF INDIAU.K. TAX TREATY BENEFIT. 13. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED BENEFIT TO THE ASS ESSEE UNDER THE INDIAUK TAX TREATY ON THE GROUND THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TAXABLE IN UK, HENCE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS A RESIDENT OF UK UNDER ARTICLE 4(1) OF THE INDIAUK TAX TREATY. 14. THE LEARNED SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED, IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201213 AND THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HAS HELD THAT BENEFIT UNDER INDI AUK TAX TREATY IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 15. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THOUGH , AGREED THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBU NAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 201213, HOWEVER, HE RELIED UPON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED DRP. 16. HAVING CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IT IS NOTI CED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201213 IN THE ORDER CITED SUPRA. WHILE DECIDING TH E ISSUE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D MATERIALS ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELYING UPON HI S OBSERVATIONS IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF INDIAUK DTAA AS IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY TAX I N UK. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO HELD THAT THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSEE IS OTHERWISE TAXABLE AS FTS BOTH UNDER SECTION 9(1)(VII) OF THE ACT AS W ELL AS UNDER THE DTAA. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF INDIAUK DTAA TO THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 201112, HAS HELD IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 10. SIMILARLY, IN OTHER YEARS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FO LLOWED ITS EARLIER ORDER AND HELD THAT M/S. LINKLATERS IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEF ITS OF INDIA-UK DTAA SO LONG AS ENTIRE PROFITS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM ARE TAXED IN UK, WHETHER IN THE TAXABLE INCOME IS DETERMINED IN RELATION TO PERSONA L CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PARTNERS OR IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM DIRECTLY. IN T HE YEAR BEFORE US, THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON FACTS THAT ULTIMATELY TAX HAS BEEN PAID EITHER BY THE SAID FIRM OR BY ITS PARTNERS IN UK. NO DISTINCTION HAS BEEN POIN TED OUT BY THE LD. CIT-DR ON FACTS OR LAW. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN LINKLATERSS CASE FOR EARLIER YE ARS, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM BENEFITS OF INDIA UK- DTAA. TH EREFORE, GROUNDS 8 TO 8.4 ARE ALLOWED. 8 ITA NO.6846/MUM/2018(A.Y.2014-15) 9. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE C OORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM BENEFIT UNDER INDIAUK DTAA. AS REGARDS THE NATURE OF INCOM E RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHETHER IS FTS? AND ITS TAXABILITY UNDER THE ACT IN INDIA, THE CO ORDINATE BENCH WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 201112 IN THE ORDER REFERRED TO ABOVE, HAS UL TIMATELY CONCLUDED AS UNDER: 32. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS BROUGHT BEFORE US, AND IN VIEW OF THE LEGAL POSITION AS EXPLAINED IN MANY JUDGEMENTS AS DISCUSS ED ABOVE, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE REVE NUE AND THUS HOLD THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT FALL IN THE CA TEGORY OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AS ENVISAGED IN ARTICLE 13 OF I NDIA-UK DTAA. FURTHER, SINCE THIS AMOUNT IS NOT TAXABLE UNDER DTAA AS FTS, IT CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS FTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9 OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961, IN VIEW OF SECTION 90(2) OF THE ACT, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. TH US, WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, GROUNDS 9 TO 9.6 ARE ALLOWED. 10. FACTS BEING IDENTICAL, FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH, WE HOLD THAT THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE NO T BEING IN THE NATURE OF FTS AS ENVISAGED UNDER ARTICLE13 OF THE INDIA UK DTAA, CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 9(1)(VII) OF THE ACT, SINCE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE BENEFI T OF INDIAUK DTAA. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, GROUNDS NO.6 AND 7 ARE ALLOWED AN D THE ISSUES RAISED IN GROUND NO.5 HAVING BECOME REDUNDANT WILL NOT REQUIR E ADJUDICATION. 17. FACTS BEING IDENTICAL, FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH, WE DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7.1. THUS, THE TRIBUNAL IN A VERY CATEGORIC MANNER HAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION -9 RELATING TO FEE FOR TECHN ICAL SERVICES DOES NOT APPLY TO THE CASE OF ASSESSE, HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTI TLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DTAA. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PLACE ON RECORD AN Y CONTRARY MATERIAL. FURTHER, NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US TO S HOW THAT THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS DIFFERENT FROM THE TRANSACTIONS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. RESPECTFU LLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WE HOLD THAT THE PROVISIO NS OF INDIA-UK DTAA WOULD OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IN THE INSTANT C ASE AND THE REMUNERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE FOR PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICE S DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT 9 ITA NO.6846/MUM/2018(A.Y.2014-15) OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AS DEFINED IN DTAA. THUS, GROUND NO.13 TO 15 AND 19 TO 25 READ WITH GROUND NOS. 8 TO 12 OF THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WHETHER THE ASSESSE HAS PE IN INDIA AND THE RECEIPT S ARE LIABLE TO BE TAXED AS BUSINESS PROFITS: 8. AS REGARDS THE TAXABILITY OF INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE UNDER ARTICLE 7, AS BUSINESS PROFIT IS CONCERNED, IT WOULD BE IMPERAT IVE THAT FIRST THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE WHETHER IT HAS PE IN INDIA HAS TO BE E STABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 5 OF THE DTAA. IF IT IS HELD THAT TH E ASSESSE HAS NO PE IN INDIA, THE PROVISION OF ARTICLE 7 WOULD NOT GET ATTRACTED. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT DURING THE RELEVAN T PERIOD THE PERSONNEL/EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE IN INDIA F OR A PERIOD OF SIX DAYS ONLY. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A CHART ALONG WITH HI S SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW GIVING DETAILS VIZ. NAME OF THE P ERSONNEL, PERIOD OF STAY IN INDIA AND THE TOTAL DURATION OF STAY, TO SUBSTANTIA TE THAT THE AGGREGATE PERIOD OF STAY OF THE PERSONNEL/EMPLOYEES IN INDIA IS LESS THAN 90 DAYS WITHIN 12 MONTHS PERIOD. A PERUSAL OF THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT O RDER AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE DET AILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE SAME WERE NOT EXAMINED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IN PRI NCIPLE HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IF THE EMPLOYEES/PE RSONNEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT RENDERED SERVICES IN INDIA FOR A PERIOD EX CEEDING 90 DAYS DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD THEN IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT HAVE A PE IN INDIA DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS THE 10 ITA NO.6846/MUM/2018(A.Y.2014-15) RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN AY 2013-1 4 IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THOUGH, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS MADE AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE OUT A CASE BY INTERPRETING THE EXPRESSION ANY TWELVE M ONTHS PERIOD AS USED IN ARTICLE 5(2)(K)(I) OF THE INDIA U.K. TAX TREATY IN A DIFFE RENT MANNER, HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE SAME. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201213 IN ITA NO.1540/MUM./2016, DATED 29TH AUGUST 2018. WHILE DEALING WITH THE AFORESAID ISSUE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER : 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED MATERIALS ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS GROUND WAS N EVER AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE D RP. THUS, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE TREATED AS AN ADDITIONAL GROUND. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS GROUND IS A PURELY LE GAL ISSUE, SINCE, IT INVOLVES INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 5(2)(K)(I) OF THE INDIAU K DTAA, WE ARE INCLINED TO ADMIT THIS GROUND. REVERTING BACK TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS GROUND, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRING TO ARTICLE 5(2)(K)(I)OF THE INDIAUK DTAA HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A PE IN INDIA, SINCE, ITS EMP LOYEES OR PERSONNEL HAVE RENDERED SERVICES IN INDIA FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS OR MORE W ITHIN ANY 12 MONTH PERIOD. NOTABLY, THE EXPRESSION ANY 12 MONTH PERIOD AS USED IN ART ICLE 5(2)(K)(I) OF THE INDIAUK DTAA HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED ANYWHERE IN THE DTAA. THE REFORE, WE HAVE TO FIND THE MEANING OF THE SAID EXPRESSION BY TAKING AID OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, SINCE, THE INCOME IS SOUGHT TO BE TAXED IN IN DIA. SECTION 5 OF THE ACT WHICH DEFINES SCOPE OF TOTAL INCOME REFERS TO THE TOTAL I NCOME OF ANY PREVIOUS YEAR OF A PERSON WHO IS A RESIDENT. SIMILARLY, SECTION 6 OF T HE ACT POSTULATES THAT AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HUF OR A COMPANY OR ANY OTHER PERSON CAN BE CO NSIDERED TO BE A RESIDENT IN INDIA IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR IF IT SATISFIES THE COND ITION MENTIONED THEREIN. THUS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING CONSIDERED AS A RESIDENT IN INDIA A REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR. SECTION 4 OF THE ACT, WHICH IS THE C HARGING SECTION, MANDATES THAT A PERSON SHALL BE CHARGED TO INCOME TAX IN RESPECT OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE EXPRESSION PREVIOUS YEAR HAS BEEN DEFIN ED UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE ACT TO MEAN THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE A SSESSMENT YEAR. THUS, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC LAW, THE 12 MONTH PERIOD WOU LD MEAN THE PREVIOUS YEAR OR THE FINANCIAL YEAR WHICH IS THE UNIT FOR WHICH THE INCOME OF A PERSON IS TAXABLE. IF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 5(2)(K)(I)OF THE INDIAUK DTA A IS READ HARMONIOUSLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT REFERRED TO ABOVE, IT WILL BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE EXPRESSION ANY 12 MONTH PERIOD MENTIONED IN A RTICLE 5(2)(K)(I)OF THE INDIAU.K. DTAA HAS TO BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN THE PREVIOUS YEAR OR FINANCIAL YEAR AS PER SECTION 3 OF THE ACT, SINCE, THE INCOME IS SOUGHT TO BE TAX ED IN INDIA. THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE SEEN WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES OR PERSONNEL OF THE ASSE SSEE HAVE RENDERED SERVICES IN INDIA FOR A PERIOD AGGREGATING TO 90 DAYS OR MORE I N FINANCIAL YEAR 201112 TO CONSTITUTE A PE. AS PER THE CHART SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT PAGE37 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE EMPLOYEES AND PERSONNE L OF THE ASSESSEE WERE SITUATED IN INDIA FOR RENDERING SERVICES FOR A PERIOD AGGREGATI NG TO 77 DAYS. SINCE, THE AFORESAID 11 ITA NO.6846/MUM/2018(A.Y.2014-15) FACTUAL ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE DEPARTM ENTAL AUTHORITIES AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RAISE THIS ISSUE BEFORE THEM, WE ARE INCLIN ED TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION KEEPING IN VIEW OF OUR OBSERVATIONS HEREIN ABOVE AND ONLY AFTER DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. FACTS BEING IDENTICAL, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASO N TO DEVIATE FROM THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLL OWING THE DECISION CITED SUPRA, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY AS TO WHETHER THE E MPLOYEES/PERSONNEL OF THE ASSESSEE WERE SITUATED IN INDIA FOR RENDERING SERVICES FOR A PERI OD NOT EXCEEDING NINETY DAYS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE AND IF IT IS FOUND TO BE SO, THEN, IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE A PE IN INDIA DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED SUBJECT TO FA CTUAL VERIFICATION AS INDICATED ABOVE. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE, IN PRINCIPLE WE ARE INCLINED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE. HOWEVER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACTUAL VERIFICATION OF THE EMPLOYEES STAY IN INDIA DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER ASSERTING THE SAME SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE, ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUND NO.16 TO 18 OF THE APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE IN THE TERMS AFORES AID. APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 15 OF INDIA-UK DTAA: 9. THE ASSESSE HAS CHALLENGED THE FINDINGS OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSE BEING PARTNERSHIP FIRM DOE S NOT HAVE SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY AND HENCE, ITS INCOME CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER ARTICLE-15 OF THE INDIA UK DTAA. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. THE FINDI NGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE ARE AS UNDER:- 18. GROUND NO.24, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE15 OF THE INDIAU.K. TAX TREATY. 19. THE LEARNED SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED, THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES ARE COMPLETELY WRONG IN APPLYING ARTICLE15 OF THE INDIAUK TAX TREATY TO THE PRESENT ASSESSEE AS IT IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO SERVIC ES RENDERED BY AN INDIVIDUAL. THE 12 ITA NO.6846/MUM/2018(A.Y.2014-15) LEARNED SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED, THI S VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING IDENTICAL ISSUE IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 201112. THUS, HE SUBMITTED, THE ISSUE IS COVERED B Y THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. 20. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THOUGH , AGREED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE, HOWEVER, HE RELIED UPON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED DRP. 21. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS COULD BE SEEN, IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 12. WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN ITA NO. 1540/MUM./2 016, DATED 29TH AUGUST 2018, THE TRIBUNAL, FOLLOWING ITS EARLIER ORDER HELD THA T ASSESSEES INCOME WOULD NOT BE TAXABLE UNDER ARTICLE15 OF INDIAUK TAX TREATY AS IT IS APPLICABLE TO THE SERVICE RENDERED BY AN INDIVIDUAL. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THIS REGARD ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR BETTER APPRECIATION. 23. HAVING CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND T HAT WHILE DECIDING IDENTICAL ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 201112, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: 35. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ALSO ARTICLE 15 OF INDIA-UK DTAA. IT IS NOTED BY US THAT ARTICLE 15 OF DTAA DEALS WITH TAXABILITY OF INDEPENDENT PERSONAL SERVI CES. THIS ARTICLE STARTS WITH THE WORDS INCOME DERIVED BY AN INDIVIDUAL.... ...IN RESPECT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OR OTHER INDEPENDENT ACTIVITI ES OF SIMILAR CHARACTER........IT IS NOTED BY US THAT ARTICLE 15 SHALL BE APPLICABLE FOR DETERMINING TAXABLE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDU AL AND NOT OTHER PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE IS CERTAINLY NOT AN INDIVIDUA L. THUS THIS ARTICLE CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE ON THE ASSESSEE BEING NOT AN IND IVIDUAL. SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID CA SE OF M/S LINKLATERS (FOR AY 1995-96) WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HELD AT PARA 106 O F THE ORDER THAT ARTICLE 15 SHALL BE APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN SERVICES ARE RENDE RED BY AN INDIVIDUAL. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL IT IS HELD THAT IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF FEE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WOU LD NOT BE LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER ARTICLE 15 OF INDIA-UK DTAA. THUS, GROU NDS 10 TO10.5 ARE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 24. FACTS BEING IDENTICAL, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH, WE HOLD THAT THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE TAXABLE UNDER ARTICLE15 OF INDIAUK DTAA. THIS GRO UND IS ALLOWED. 22. FACTS BEING IDENTICAL, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE HOLD THAT INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE WILL NOT BE TAXABLE UNDER ARTICLE15 OF THE INDIAUK TAX TREATY. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF EARLIER YEARS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 15 OF INDIA-UK DTAA WOULD NOT APPLY TO T HE ASSESSE. SINCE, THE FACTS 13 ITA NO.6846/MUM/2018(A.Y.2014-15) IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL ARE SIMILAR, WE SEE NO REASON TO TAKE A DIVERGENT VIEW. FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.30 TO 33 OF THE APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 10. THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL ARE EITH ER GENERAL IN NATURE OR ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMARY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. SI NCE, WE HAVE ADJUDICATED PRIMARY ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL, THE OTHER GROU NDS HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC AND AS SUCH WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO TRAV EL TO THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL. 11. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS AFORESAID. 12. THIS APPEAL WAS HEARD ON 16/03/2020. AS PER RUL E 34(5) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963, (ITAT RULES, 1963), THE ORDER WAS REQUIRED TO BE ORDINARILY PRONOUNCED WITHIN A PER IOD OF 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING OF APPEAL. THE IN STANT APPEAL WAS HEARD PRIOR TO THE LOCKDOWN DECLARED BY THE HONBLE PRIME MINIS TER ON 24-03-2020 IN VIEW OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC. THE LOCKDOWN WAS FORCED DUE T O EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES CAUSED BY WORLD WIDE SPREAD OF COVID- 19. THEREAFTER, THE LOCKDOWN WAS EXTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. THEREFORE , THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF HEARING IS NOT UNDER ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. JSW LTD., ITA NO.6264/MUM/2018 FOR A.Y 201 3-14 DECIDED ON 14/05/2020, UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AFTER CO NSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 34(5) OF THE ITAT RULES, 1963, JUDGEMENTS REND ERED BY HONBLE APEX COURT AND THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ON THE ISSU E OF TIME LIMIT FOR 14 ITA NO.6846/MUM/2018(A.Y.2014-15) PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE CIR CUMSTANCES LEADING TO LOCKDOWN HELD:- 10. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT RATHER THAN TAKING A PEDANTIC VIEW OF THE RULE REQUIRING P RONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS WITHIN 90 DAYS, DISREGARDING THE IMPORTANT FACT THAT THE ENTI RE COUNTRY WAS IN LOCKDOWN, WE SHOULD COMPUTE THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS BY EXCLUDING A T LEAST THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE LOCKDOWN WAS IN FORCE. WE MUST FACTOR GROUND RE ALITIES IN MIND WHILE INTERPRETING THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER. LAW IS NOT BROODING OMNIPOTENCE IN THE SKY. IT IS A PRAGMATIC TOOL OF THE SOCIAL OR DER. THE TENETS OF LAW BEING ENACTED ON THE BASIS OF PRAGMATISM, AND THAT IS HOW THE LAW IS REQUIRED TO INTERPRETED. THE INTERPRETATION SO ASSIGNED BY US IS NOT ONLY INCONS ONANCE WITH THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF RULE 34(5) BUT IS ALSO A PRAGMATIC APPROACH AT A TI ME WHEN A DISASTER, NOTIFIED UNDER THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT 2005, IS CAUSING UNPREC EDENTED DISRUPTION IN THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR JUSTICE DELIVERY SYSTEM. UNDOUBT EDLY, IN THE CASE OF OTTERS CLUB VS DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (BOM)], HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DID NOT APPROVE AN ORDER BEING PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BEYOND A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS, BUT THEN IN THE PRESENT SITUATION HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ITSELF HAS, VID E JUDGMENT DATED 15TH APRIL 2020, HELD THAT DIRECTED WHILE CALCULATING THE TIME FOR DISPOSAL OF MATTERS MADE TIME- BOUND BY THIS COURT, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH 2020 CONTINUES TO OPERATE SHALL BE ADDED AND TIME SHALL STAND EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY . THE EXTRAORDINARY STEPS TAKEN SUO MOTU BY HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT ALSO INDICATE THAT THIS PERIO D OF LOCKDOWN CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ORDINARY PERIOD DURING WHICH THE NORMAL TIME LIMITS ARE TO REMAIN IN FORCE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, EVEN WITHOUT THE WORDS ORDINA RILY, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL POSITION, THE PERIOD DURING W HICH ITA NO. 6103 AND LOCKOUT WAS IN FORCE IS TO EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TIME LIM ITS SET OUT IN RULE 34(5) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. VIEWED THUS, THE EX CEPTION, TO 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, INHERENT IN RULE 34(5)(C), WITH RESPECT TO THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS WITHIN NINETY DAYS, CLEARLY COMES INTO PLAY IN THE PRESENT CASE. OF COURSE, THERE IS NO, AND THERE CANNOT BE A NY, BAR ON THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCHES TO REFIX THE MATTERS FOR CLARIFICATIONS BEC AUSE OF CONSIDERABLE TIME LAG BETWEEN THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE HEARING IS CONCL UDED AND THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE ORDER THEREON IS BEING FINALIZED, BUT THEN, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NO SUCH EXERCISE WAS REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED OUT ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. THUS, IN LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTS AND THE DECISION OF C OORDINATE BENCH, THE PRESENT ORDER IS PRONOUNCED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS. 15 ITA NO.6846/MUM/2018(A.Y.2014-15) 13. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. O RDER PRONOUNCED UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) R ULES, 1962, BY PLACING THE DETAILS ON THE NOTICE BOARD. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY THE 12 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020. SD/- SD/- (N.K.PRADHAN) (VIKAS AWASTHY) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / MUMBAI, 4 / DATED 12/06/2020 VM , SR. PS(O/S) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. , / THE APPELLANT , 2. !- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 5- ( )/ THE CIT(A)- 4. 5- CIT 5. 67 !- , . . . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 789 :; / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI