SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -4(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4712/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Shell International Petroleum Company Limited (SIPC), which appealed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation), Mumbai. The primary contention was regarding the assessment of income and the applicability of tax on various receipts categorized under 'Business Support Services', 'Software License Charges', and other services. The tribunal examined whether these receipts constituted income, FTS, or royalty, and whether they were taxable in India under the Income Tax Act and the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The tribunal's decision was influenced by previous rulings and the interpretation of the DTAA, leading to the conclusion that many of the contested receipts were not taxable in India.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781386 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. Vs. GOI [2024] 463 ITR 222 (Bom), Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. V. CIT [2023] 432 ITR 147, Skycell Communications Ltd und Anr. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and Ors., CIT (International Taxation)-1. Delhi v. M/s Biorad
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATYAPAL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MADHUR AGRAWAL; I SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT LTD VS. UOI ITR BOM; HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT; COORDINATE BENCHES
• Keywords: Set aside; Question of law; TDS; Wholly owned subsidiary; Double taxation relief; Permanent establishment; FORM 26AS
• Section: 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4712/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shell International Petroleum Company Limited C/o B S R & Co. LLP, 2nd Floor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011 Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income –tax (International Taxation) 4(2)(1), Mumbai 17th Floor, Room No. 1708, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAICS0357B (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee by: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/ Ms. Reema Grewal /Revenue by: Shri Satya Pal Kumar CIT (DR) Date of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M]: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Dy. CIT (IT), Mumbai dated 27.09.2023 passed as per the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u/s. 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \"Act\"] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2021-22. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Shell International Petroleum Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as \"SIPC' or 'the Appellant') craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited Income-tax (International Taxation) -4(2)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the leamed AO' under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Hon'ble DRP\") on the following grounds, each of which are without prejudice to one another. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO based on the directions of the Hon'ble DRP. General 1. Erred in assessing the total income at Rs. 2,74,35,00,151 as against income of Rs. 41,23,02,123 offered by the Appellant. Final assessment order passed by the learned AO is bad in law 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in passing/issuing the final assessment order dated 31 October 2023 under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act beyond the time limit as presented under section 153 of the Act. The Appellant submits that the final assessment order being barred by limitation is without jurisdiction and void ab initio and hence, the same is liable to be quashed. Receipts from General Business Support Services ('General BSS') does not constitute 'income' 3. Erred in holding that the payments received of Rs. 2.19.21.79,805 by the Appellant constitutes 'income without appreciating the fact that the receipts from General BSS are in nature of cost-recharge pursuant to Cost Contribution Agreement ('CCA') which does not constitute income under section 2(24) of the Act and hence not taxable in India. Receipts from General BSS does not qualify as Fees for Technical Services ('FTS') 4. Erred in holding that the payments received by the Appellant for providing General BSS constitutes FTS under the Act as well as India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('India-UK DTAA'). 5. Failed in appreciating that the services provided by the Appellant are routine and not technical in nature and rendering of such services does not make available any technical knowledge, skill, experience, etc. to the service recipient, which cannot be termed as FTS under Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA and hence not subject to tax in India. Receipts towards software license charges does not constitute income 6. Erred in holding that the payments received by the Appellant towards software license charges of Rs 25.93.419 constitutes income without appreciating the facts that the said receipts are in nature of reimbursements and hence does not constitute income under section 2(24) of the Act and hence not taxable in India. Receipts towards software license charges does not qualify as Royalty Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited 7. Erred in holding that the payments received by the Appellant towards cost allocation for software license charges as Royalty' under provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA 8. Erred in not appreciating that the payments received were in nature of cost allocations of third-party vendor software license charges and not for 'use of right to use of copyright', 'use of process', 'use of property similar to patent, invention, literary work, process, design, etc, accordingly does not qualify as 'Royalty under the Act as well as the India-UK DTAA. Receipts towards GST Scoping charges and reimbursement of IT costs does not constitute income 9. Erred in holding that the payments received by the Appellant towards GST Scoping charges and reimbursement of IT costs of Rs. 13,64,24,804 constitutes income without appreciating the facts that the said receipts are in nature of reimbursements and hence does not constitute income under section 2(24) of the Act and hence not taxable in India. Receipts towards GST Scoping charges and reimbursement of IT costs does not quality as FTS 10 Erred in holding that the payments received by the Appellant towards GST Scoping charges and reimbursement of IT costs qualifies as 'FTS the Act as well as Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA 11. Erred in not appreciating that the payments were not for providing any technical services that are ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of the right, property or information for a payment under Article 13 of the India UK DTAA and without prejudice not for any services that 'make available' any technical knowledge, skill, experience, etc. and accordingly such payments could not be considered as 'FTS' under the Act and under the Article 13(4) of India-UK DTAA. Incorrect tax rate 12. Erred in applying tax rate of 15% on total income instead of 10% plus applicable surcharge and cess on total income except interest on income-tax refund without appreciating the facts and circumstance of the case. Short granting of credit for TDS 13. Erred in not granting the TDS credit of Rs. 7,46, 161 without appreciating the facts and circumstance of the case. Interest under section 234A of the Act 14. Erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act without appreciating the facts and circumstance of the case. Interest under section 234B of the Act 15. Erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act without appreciating the facts and circumstance of the cate Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited Interest under section 234C of the Act 16. Erred in levying interest under section 234C of the Act without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case Incorrect amount of refund issued 17. Erred in considering a refund amount of Rs. 80,59,352 issued to the Appellant wherein no refund was received by the Appellant without appreciating the facts and circumstance of the case Penalty under section 270A of the Act 18. Erred in levying penalty under section 270A of the Act for misreporting/underreporting of income without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee (SIPC) is a company incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom and is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Shell Petroleum Company Ltd. SIPC provides services to the Shell group’s downstream segment which includes all the activities necessary to transform crude oil and synthetic crude from its oil sands operation into a range of refined shell products. SIPC works on a cost-only arrangement for providing support services, The assessee filed its return declaring income of Rs. 41,23,02,123 for A.Y. 2021-22. The assessment was finalised u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act vide order dated 31.10.2023 after making various additions, as per the directions of Ld. DRP. 4. At the outset, ld. AR submitted that all the issues are covered in favour of the assessee. A chart demonstrating the issues stating brief facts and the reference of order by which these are covered has also been filed. i. Ground No. 1 is general and needs no adjudication. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 5 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited ii. Ground No. 2 relates to the issue of assessment being time barred u/s. 153 of the Act. Ld. AR has requested to keep it open for the time being. 5. Ground No. 3, 4 & 5- Business Support Services – Whether taxable as FTS Brief facts related to this issue are that the assessee renders Business Support Services (BSS) to various shell group concerns under a Cost Contribution Agreement(CCA). Taxability of payment received for BSS is a recurring issue and it has been submitted by the ld. AR that the same is covered by the following decisions in assessee’s favour: i. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. Vs. GOI [2024] 463 ITR 222 (Bom) wherein BSS has been held not to be in the nature of FTS. ii. In assessee’s own cases for earlier years i.e. A.Y. 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 and A.Y. 16-17 to 2020-21 by the orders of the coordinate benches. 5.2 On the other hand, ld. DR has strongly relied on the order of Ld. AO on this issue. 5.3 We have heard the rival submissions and various decisions on the issue have been perused. We note that on identical facts, the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee consistently for last several years by the co-ordinate benches. For A.Y. 2009-10, this issue came up for the first time and the co-ordinate bench in ITA No. 1253/Mum/2014, has vide order dated 10.09.2024, held as under: Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 6 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited “10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has entered into a Cost Contribution Agreement dated 01.04.2008 with SIMPL for general BSS which are in the nature of management support, development and provision of support and business tools, provision of marketing support, promotion of professional competence, legal services, development, communication and audit of standards of performance, contracting and procurement services, taxation advice and services, general financial advice and services, employee relations and public affairs/media advice and other business support services. The assessee contends that the cost incurred by the assessee is to be allocated amongst Shell operating companies based on cost allocation keys as per the terms of CCA and further the said costs are without mark up and are charged to the cost sharers on the basis of actual cost incurred by the assessee. It also contended that the payments received without markup are in the nature of reimbursement and not in the character of income which is chargeable to tax in India. They are merely in the nature of cost-recharge as per the CCA. It is further observed that SIMPL filed an application before the Hon'ble AAR fordetermining its tax withholding obligation in respect of the cost contribution made to the assessee and the Hon'ble AAR vide its order dated 17.01.2012 held that the payments made by SIMPL to the assessee was in the nature of 'fee for technical service as per Article 13 of India-UK DTAA for which SIMPL was liable to withhold taxes as per section 195 of the Act. Parallely the assessee's case was picked up for scrutiny where the lower authorities made an addition on the impugned payment received by the assessee from SIMPL by extensively relying on the ruling of the Hon'ble AAR which held the same to be 'fee for technical service in the case of SIMPL. Though the assessee during the assessment proceeding had objected for placing reliance on the ruling of the Hon'ble AAR as being not binding on the assessee, the lower authorities failed to agree with the assessee's contention and held that as per section 245(5) of the I. T. Act, the ruling of the Hon'ble AAR had binding effect on the assessee unless there is a change in law or facts. The relevant extract of the Hon'ble AAR order is cited herein under for ease of reference: “We therefore rule on Que.No.(i) & (ii) that the payment made by the applicant to SIPCL for availing the General BSS under the CCA would constitute income in the hands of SIPCL and is in the nature of fees for technical services within the meaning of Article 13.4 (c) of the DTAA between India and UK: and not in the nature of royalty within the meaning of the term in Explanation 2 to Clause (vi) of Section 9(1) of the Act and under Article 13 of DTAA. While we rule on Que. No. (iii) & (iv), Based on answer to Que. No. (i) & (ii) that the payment received by SIPCL is chargeable to tax in India and the declaration provided by SIPCL that it does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article 5 of DTAA, we rule that the applicant is under obligation to withhold tax under section 195 of the Act.\" 11. Pursuant to the said ruling SIMPL had filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court challenging the validity and legality of the order passed by the Hon'ble AAR and the Hon'ble High Court (in Writ Petition No. 10788 of 2012 vide order dated 01.03.2024), quashed the order of the Hon'ble AAR as being not sustainable by law and by holding that the payment received by the assessee from SIMPL is not in the nature of 'fee for technical service and further held that the services are in the nature Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 7 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited ofmanagerial service and not technical service which are made available. The relevant extract of the said decision is cited herein under for ease of reference 15. Be that as it may, the crux of the matter lies in ascertaining whether the finding of the AAR that services availed by Pentioner from SIPCL or payments made by Petitioner to SIPCL are for technical consultation services and secondly, whether such services are made available to Petitioner. Article 13 of DTAA reads as under \"ARTICLE 13 ROYALTIES AND FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES 1. Royalties and fees for technical services arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other State 2. However, such royalties and fees for technical services may also he tossed in the Contracting State in which they arise and according to the law of that State, but if the beneficial owner of the royalties or fees for technical services is a resident of the other Contracting State the tax so charged shall not exceed (a) in the case of royalties within paragraph (3)(a) of this Article, and fees for technical services within paragraph (4)(a) and (c) of this Article (i) during the first five years for which this Convention has effect: (aa) 15 per cent of the gross amount of such royalties or fees for technical services when the payer of the royalties or fees for technical services is the Government of the first-mentioned Contracting State or a political subdivision of that State, and (bb) 20 per cent of the gross amount of such royalties or fees for technical services in all other cases, and (ii) during subsequent years. 15 per cent of the gross amount of such royalties or fees for technical services, and (b) in the case of royalties within paragraph (3)(b) of this Article and fees for technical services defined in paragraph (4)(b) of this Article, 10 per cent of the gross amount of such royalties and fees for technical services. 3. For the purposes of this Article, the term \"royalties\" means (a) payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use any copyright of a literary, artistic Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 8 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited or scientific work, including cinematograph films or work on films, tape or other means of reproduction for use in connection with radio or television broadcasting, any patent, trademark design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience, and (b) payments of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any industrial, commercial or scientific equipment, other than income derived by an enterprise of a Contracting State from the operation of slips or aircraft in international traffic 4. For the purposes of paragraph (2) of this Article, and subject to paragraph (5) of this Article the term \"fees for technical services\" means payments of any kind to any person in consideration for the rendering of any technical or consultancy services (including the provisions of services of technical or other personnel) wluch (a) are ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of the right, property or information for which a payment described in paragraph (3)(a) of this Article is received: or (b) are ancillary and subsidiary to the enjoyment of the property for which a payment described in paragraph (3)(b) of this Article is received, or (c) make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes, or consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design.\" 16. From the above words of the Article it is clear that income of SIPCL will be chargeable to tax in India only if the payment by Petitioner is towards fees for technical services Under Article 13(4), the term 'fees for technical services' means payments of any kind in consideration for the rendering of any technical or consultancy services. Sub-para (c) to Article 13(4) further restricts the meaning of the term to only that which makes available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes, or consists of the development of transfer of a technical plan or technical design. 17. The principle of noscitur a sociis mandates that the meaning of a word is to be judged by the company of other words which it keeps. The word 'consultancy' services follows technical which is further followed by the phrase \"which make available technical knowledge, experience skill, know-how or processes, or consist of development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design.\" A clear reading indicates that even if consultancy services is 'stand alone, the bunch of words indicate that the said 'consultancy' necessarily relates to consultancy which makes available technical or any other knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes and does not relate to consultancy on managerial issues. 18. The Appendix 2 of CCA contains the General BSS. The list of services availed are as under: EXAMPLES OF GENERAL BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 9 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited  Management Support  Development and Provisions of Support and Business Tools  Provision of Marketing Support.  Development, Communication and Audit of Standards of Performance Promotion of Professional Competence  Information Technology Advice and Services  General Financial Advice and Services  Taxation Advice and Services  Legal Services  Employee Relations and Public Affairs/Media Advice and Services  HR Advice and Services.  Contracting and Procurement Services  Other Business Support Services A perusal of the list of services relate to managerial services not involving anything of a technical nature. The AAR has discussed the services appearing in the CCA and has concluded that these activities in a retail business are at the core of retail marketing and hence advice tendered in taking a decision of commercial nature is a consultancy service. The AAR has further considered the definition of the word 'Consultancy' as defined in the Oxford English dictionary and has observed that a consultant is a person who gives professional advice or services in a specialized field. However, the AAR failed to appreciate that the word 'Consultancy' appearing in the Article is to be interpreted in the context of consultancy which makes available technical knowledge, etc and not of managerial nature. The reading of the Article clearly indicates that the consultancy service must be which makes available technical knowledge, etc. Sub-para (c) to Article 13(4) restricts such services to those which make available technical knowledge or consist of development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design. Thus, a harmonious reading of the provision of Article 13 in its entirety, clearly establishes the intent of the DTAA in making income chargeable to tax only if the services availed pertain to technical services or consultancy services. Technical services in this context mean services requiring expertise in a technology By Consultancy Services, in this context, would mean advisory services. The categories of technical and consultancy services are to some extent, overlapping. Under paragraph 4, technical and consultancy services are considered included services only to the following extent (1) as described in paragraph 4(a), if they are ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of a right, property or information for which a payment described in paragraph (3)(a) of Article13 is received: (2) are ancillary and subsidiary to the enjoyment of the property for which a payment described in paragraph (3)(b) of Article 13 is received, or (3) as described in paragraph 4(c). if they make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes. or consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design. Thus, under paragraph (c), consultancy services which are not of a technical nature cannot be included services. Thus, the services availed by Petitioner cannot be said to be technical services and Article 13 is wholly applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case 19. It will be useful to refer to a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd und Anr. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and Ors.8 which held as follows: \"8. Thus while stating that \"technical service\" would include managerial and consultancy service, the Legislature has not set out with precision as to what would constitute \"technical\" service to render it \"technical service\". The meaning of the word \"technical\" as given in the New Oxford Dictionary is adjective Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 10 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited 1. of or relating to a particular subject, art or craft or its techniques technical terms (especially of a book or article) requiring special knowledge to be understood a technical report. 2 of involving, or concerned with applied and industrial sciences an important technical achievement 3. resulting from mechanical failure a technical fault. 4. according to a strict application or interpretation of the law or the rules the arrest was a technical violation of the treaty 9. Having regard to the fact that the term is required to be understood in the context in which it is used, \"fee for technical services\" could only be meant to cover such things technical as are capable of being provided by way of service for a fee. The popular meaning associated with \"technical\" is \"involving or concerning applied and industrial science 10. In the modern day world, almost every facet of one's life is linked to science and technology inasmuch as numerous things used or relied upon in everyday life is the result of scientific and technological development. Every instrument or gadget that is used to make life easier is the result of scientific invention or development and involves the use of technology. On that score, every provider of every instrument or facility used by a person cannot be regarded as providing technical service 11. When a person hires a taxi to move from one place to another, he uses a product of science and technology, viz, an automobile. It cannot on that ground be said that the taxi driver who controls the vehicle, and monitors its movement is rendering a technical service to the person who uses the automobile. Similarly, when a person travels by train or in an aeroplane, it cannot be said that the railways or airlines is rendering a technical service to the passenger and, therefore, the passenger is under an obligation to deduct tax at source on the payments made to the railway or the airline for having used it for travelling from one destination to another When a person travels by bus, it cannot be said that the undertaking which owns the bus service is rendering technical service to the passenger and, therefore, the passenger must deduct tax at source on the payment made to the bus service provider, for having used the bus. The electricity supplied to a consumer cannot on the ground that generators are used to generate electricity transmission lines to carry the power, transformers to regulate the flow of current, meters to measure the consumption, be regarded as amounting to provision of technical services to the consumer resulting in the consumer having to deduct tax at source on the payment made for the power consumed and remit the same to the Revenue 15. The use of the internet and the world wide web is increasing by leaps and bounds, and there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of subscribers to that facility. The internet is verymuch a product of technology, and without the sophisticated equipment installed by the internet service providers and the use of the telephone fixed or mobile through which the connection is established, the service cannot be provided. However, on that score, every subscriber of the internet service provider cannot be regarded as having entered into a contract for availing of technical services from the provider of the internet service, and such subscriber regarded as being obliged to deduct tax at source on the payment made to the internet service provider. 20. Thus, it is clear from the said decision that any service is construable as technical and one has to see the true import of the service actually rendered and the Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 11 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited determination must be made in this context. There is no such discussion in the Impugned order and the finding is based on Dictionary: The AAR further holds that the list of services mentioned in the CCA is not an on a generic reference to the meaning of the word 'consultancy as given in the Oxford English, that the AAR has proceeded on conjectures and surmises to render the finding in the impugned exhaustive list and may include other technical services. Thus Petitioner is correct in contending order. 21. The AAR has further held that the services are made available to Petitioner since while providing General BSS, SIPCL works closely with the employees of the applicant and supports/advises them. It is held that Petitioner is able to use the know how/intellectual property generated from the General BSS independent of the service provider and hence the services under the agreement are clearly made available to Petitioner In order to understand the import of the words 'made available' as used in the context of Article 13(4)(c), it will be useful to refer to a decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT. Central Circle v. De Beers (Supra). Paragraph 22 reads as follows: \"22. What is the meaning of \"make available\" The technical or consultancy service rendered should be of such a nature that it \"makes available\" to the recipient technical knowledge, knowhow and the like. The service should be aimed at and result in transmitting technical knowledge, etc., so that the payer of the service could derive an enduring benefit and utilize the knowledge or know-how on his own in future without the aid of the service provider. In other words, to fit into the terminology \"make available\" the technical knowledge, skill?, etc., must remain with the person receiving the services even after the particular contract comes to an end. It is not enough that the services offered are the product of intense technological effort and a lot of technical knowledge and experience of the service provider have gone into it. The technical knowledge or skills of the provider should be imparted to and absorbed by the receiver so that the receiver can deploy similar technology or techniques in the future without depending upon the provider. Technology will be considered \"made available\" when the person acquiring the service is enabled to apply the technology. The fact that the provision of the service that may require technical knowledge, skills, etc., does not mean that technology is made available to the person purchasing the service, within the meaning of paragraph (4)(b). Similarly, the use of a product which embodies technology shall not per se he considered to make the technology available. In other words, payment of consideration would be regarded as \"fee for technical/included services\" only if the twin test of rendering services and making technical knowledge available at the same time is satisfied.\" (emphasis supplied) 22. Similarly, the Delhi High Court in the CIT (International Taxation)-1. Delhi v. M/s Biorad (Supra) has discussed the said concept accordingly. Paragraphs 14 and 15 read as under: 14. According to the Tribunal, the agreement between the respondent assessee and its Indian affiliate had been effective from 01.01.2010, and if, as contended by the appellant/revenue, technical knowledge, experience, skill, and other processes had been made available to the Indian affiliate, the Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 12 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited agreement would not have run its course for such a long period. 14.1 Notably, this aspect is adverted to in paragraphs 17 to 23 of the impugned order For convenience the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereafter \"17 A perusal of the aforementioned provision shoves that in order to qualify us FTS, the services rendered ought to satisfy the 'make available test. Therefore. in our considered opinion, in order to bring the alleged managerial services within the ambit of FTS under the India-Singapore DTAA, the services would have to satisfy the 'make available test and such serviers should emulate the person acquiring the services to apply the technology contained therein. 18. As mentioned elsewhere the agreement is effective from 01.01.2010 and we are in Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019- 120./sic. 201 In our considered opinion, if the assessee had enabled the service recipient to apply the technology on its own, then why would the service recipient require such service year after year every year since 2010? 19. This undisputed fact in itself demolishes the action of the Assenting Officer/DRP. Facts on record show that the recipient of the services is not enabled to provide the same service without recourse to the service provider, the assessee. 20. In our mangle opinion, mere incidental advantage to the recipient of services is not enough. The real test is the transfer of technology and on the given facts of the case, there is no transfer of technology and what has been appreciated by the Assessing Officerld. CIT(A) is the incidental benefit to the assessee which has been considered to be of enduring advantage. 21. In our understanding, in order to invoke make available clauses, technical knowledge and skill must remain with the person receiving the services even after the particular contract comes to an end and the technical knowledge or skills of the provider should be imparted to and absorbed by the receiver so that the receiver can deploy similar technology or techniques in the future without depending upon the provider [Emphasis is ours) 15. We tend to agree with the analysis and conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal.\" (emphasis supplied) 23. Therefore, even if it is fees for technical or consultancy services, it can be only where fees are paid in consideration for making available technical knowledge, experience etc. Thus the view of the AAR that SIPCL works closely and advises the employees of Petitioner and hence makes available the services is not correct. This view in fact suffers from fallacy since the agreement continues to operate till date. If the view of AAR is to be held as correct then the contruct must stand concluded as once the services and the know how, skill etc is transferred to Petitioner, the need of continuing to render said services must end. This is factually not so as the CCA is in effect till date. 24. Considering the above discussion it is clear that the AAR has interpreted the requirements to be satisfied for make available based on its men general Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 13 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited notion of the said term without appreciating the applicable law on the subject and also reached an erroneous conclusion that the services availed are technical services. 25. Moreover, the AAR has not dealt with the issue relating to the Permeant Establishment of SIPCL and there is no determination on the same. Of course, that was not a subject of reference before AAR 26. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 17th January 2012 of AAR suffers from legal infirmity and is quashed and set aside 27. During the course of the arguments, Mr. Mistry stated that Petitioner only seeks relief proved in clauses (a) and (b) of the petition and does not press the other provers. Rule is thus made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (by which read as follows- \"a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the transactions under CCA do not amount to being technical in nature per Article 13 of DTAA between India and UK and therefore, would not be taxable in India, b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records and papers of the Petitioner's case and after examining the legality and validity thereof quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the Authority in AAR No. 833/2009, in the rites of the Petitioner and further. 28. It is made clear that that the Department is at liberty to take necessary steps as available to it in law including as to whether the subject will be covered under Article 7 of the DTAA We express no opinion. In such proceedings, if taken, the time taken in the present proceedings will stand excluded for the purpose of limitation. 12. From the above it is observed that the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held that the services rendered by the assessee are not in the nature of technical service and are merely managerial in nature, though in the case of SIMPL, the same has a binding effect on the assessee for the reason that it arises out of the same CCA for availing General BSS. As the ruling of Hon'ble AAR holding that the same is liable to be taxed in India as 'fee for technical service' has been reversed by the Hon'ble High Court, we find no reason to uphold the order of the Id. A.O. who in fact has relied on the Hon'be AAR's ruling to decide the issue in hand. We, therefore, deem it fit to allow the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. As the issue relating to permanent establishment of the assessee is not specifically raised before us by both the sides in the grounds of appeal, except for the arguments enhanced by the Id. DR at the time of hearing, we decline to adjudicate on the same.” 5.4 We also note that this decision has been consistently followed by the co- ordinate benches for all subsequent assessment years till A.Y. 2020-21. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 14 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited As the facts remain identical, respectfully following the above mentioned decision of the co-ordinate Bench, we allow this issue in favour of the assessee. Grounds No. 6, 7,8 – Receipts towards allocation in respect of software license treated as Royalty. 6. Ld. AR has submitted that Ground No. 6 regarding whether reimbursement constitutes income may be left open. With regard to the treatment of amount received as Royalty by the ld. AO as against reimbursement claimed by the assessee, Ld. AR has submitted that this issue is also a recurring one and stands covered in assessee’s favour during earlier years. 6.2 Brief facts are that during the year, assessee company received cost allocation from SIMPL towards usage of ‘Permit Vision Software’. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that the issue involved is covered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. V. CIT(A)[2023] 432 ITR 147, wherein it has been held that consideration for use of computer software is not payment for royalty for use of copyright. Further, the issue is covered in assessee’s favour in its own case by the decisions of the co-ordinate benches from A.Y. 2011-12 till A.Y. 2020-21. 6.3 In ITA No. 2059/Mum/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 vide order dated 07.01.2025, the co-ordinate Bench on similar facts have held as under: “6. The next issue for our consideration is whether the amount received by the assessee on account of SUN Maintenance Software usage charges is royalty under the DTAA between India and UK. The Id. AR argued that it is a settled position that the amount received towards use of computer software is not a payment of royalty since the charges paid are towards use of copyrighted item and not for the use of Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 15 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited copyright itself. Therefore the Id AR argued that the provisions of section 9(1)(v) is not applicable as has been held by the AO. Our attention in this regard was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2021) 125 taxmann.com 42 (SC). 7. We in this regard notice that a similar issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT(LTU) vs. Reliance Industries P. Ltd. (2024) 164 taxmann.com 10 (Bom.) by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court is extracted below - \"6. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. We have been taken through the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal 7. The Tribunal considering the provisions of the IT Act, as also the position in law as laid down in various decisions has observed that the assessee had made purchases of computer software from the residents of Denmark and Finland. It was observed that such purchases would fall within the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (\"DTAA\") entered between India and these countries. The Tribunal also observed that a co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case in ITA No.2529/Mum/2008 and ITA No.4587/Mum/ 2010 had held that in such cases similar remittances made to the residents of Germany and France, were held to be not liable for deduction of tax at source. The Tribunal, following the decision of its co-ordinate Bench, in assessee's own case, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue by the impugned order 8. At the outset, Learned Counsel for the parties would fairly state that the question of law as raised in the present appeals, is no more res integra in view of the Supreme Court decision in case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 125 taxmann.com 42/281 Taxman 19/432 ITR 471 In the said case the Assessing Officer, applying Article 12(3) of the DTAA entered between India and U.S.A as also the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act to the transaction between the parties, held that the transaction involved copyright, which attracted the payment of royalty and accordingly, tax was required to be deducted at source by the Indian importer. Since this was not done, it was held that the assessee was liable to make good the payment of TDS which it had not deducted. Also interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act was levied. The Appeal before the Commissioner was also dismissed. 9. In these circumstances, the proceedings had reached the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee. The assessee succeeded in these proceedings, with the ITAT setting aside the concurrent findings of both the authorities below. On such backdrop, the proceedings reached the High Court 10. The High Court of Karnataka, in similar proceedings, on examination of the End User Licence Agreement (\"EULA\") involved in such transactions found that what was sold by way of computer software, including the right or interest in copyright, which gave rise to the payment of royalty, would be an income deemed to have accrued in India under Section 9(1)(vi) requiring deduction of tax at source The orders passed by the High Court were assailed before the Supreme Court. It is also required to be noted that similar issues had arisen before the Delhi High Court interalia in the case of DIT v. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 16 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited Ericsson AB [2011] 16 taxman.com 371/[2012] 204 Taxman 192/343 ITR 470 and DIT v. Nokia Networks OY [2012] 25 taxmann.com 225/212 Taxman 68/358 ITR 259 (Delhi) The Delhi High Court however took a view contrary to the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka. The Supreme Court examined the issues as arising from the decisions of both the High Courts in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd (supra). The Supreme Court in its decision rendered in the said case upheld the view taken by the Delhi High Court in interpreting such transactions in the context of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that considering the provisions of DTAA, there was no obligation on the persons mentioned in Section 195(1) of the Act to deduct tax at source as the distribution agreements, in the facts of the case did not create any interest or right in such distributors/end users, which amounted to the use or right to use any copyright. It was held that the provisions of Section9(1)(vi) of the Act along with Explanation 2 and 4 thereof which dealt with royalty, not being more beneficial to the assessee, had no application in the facts of the case. It would be appropriate to extract the conclusion as rendered by the Supreme Court in which reads thus:- \"168. Given the definition of royalties contained in Article 12 of the DTAAs mentioned in paragraph 41 of this judgment, it is clear that there is no obligation on the persons mentioned in section 195 of the Income-tax Act to deduct tax at source, as the distribution agreements/EULAs in the facts of these cases do not create any interest or right in such distributors/end-users, which would amount to the use of or right to use any copyright. The provisions contained in the Income-tax Act (section 9(1)(v), along with explanations 2 and 4 thereof), which deal with royalty, not being more beneficial to the assessees, have no application in the facts of these cases. 169. Our answer to the question posed before us, is that the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty for the use of copyright in the computer software, and that the same does not give rise to any income taxable in India, as a result of which the persons referred to in section 195 of the Income-tax Act were not liable to deduct any TDS under section 195 of the Income-tax Act. The answer to this question will apply to all four categories of cases enumerated by us in paragraph 4 of this judgment. 170. The appeals from the impugned judgments of the High Court of Karnataka are allowed, and the aforesaid judgments are set aside. The ruling of the AAR in Citrix Systems (AAR) (pra) is set aside. The appeals from the impugned judgments of the High Court of Delhi are dismissed.\" (emphasis supplied) 11. It is not in dispute that transactions in the present case are similar to what had fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd (supra). Also there is no dispute that Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 17 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited there is a DTAA entered with the countries in question, with whose residents the transactions were entered into by the assessee 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is clear that the approach of the Assessing Officer in the present case was against the correct position in lawas held by the Tribunal, and now also endorsed by the Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd (supra). In this view of the matter, we are in agreement with Mr Madhur Agarwal that these four Appeals would not give rise to the question of law as noted by us hereinabove 7. In assessee's case the payments are made towards usage of SUN Maintenance Software and therefore we are of the view that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Jurisdictional High Court are applicable to assessee also. Therefore respectfully following the said decisions we hold that the amount received towards SUN Maintenance Software cannot be treated as royalty and the addition made in this regard is not sustainable. Ground No.6 & 7 raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed. Ground No.5 on the same issue has become academic and left open.” 6.4 Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of the co-ordinate bench as reproduced above, we allow this ground in favour of the assessee as facts involved in this year are similar 7 Grounds 9 to 11: GST scoping charges- Reimbursement whether taxable as FTS Ld. AR has requested that ground No. 9 whether the reimbursement constitutes income, be left open in view of submissions made under Ground 10 &11. 7.2 Brief facts related to the issue are that these payments were held to be in the nature of consultancy fees, and held as FTS, being akin to BSS. Since during the period under consideration, GST laws were being implemented, there was a need for remote re-alignment of GSAP system for which the payment received was treated as FTS by the DRP. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 18 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited It has been submitted by Ld. AR that this issue also stands covered in favour of the assessee by orders of the co-ordinate Bench for A.Ys 2016-17 to A.Y. 2020-21. 7.3 In ITA No. 7499/Mum/2019, it has been held by the co-ordinate Bench as under: “Treatment of cost allocations in respect of GST scoping charges as FTS 13. During the year under consideration, the assessee incurred expenses towards customisation existing systems to comply with the GST regulations implemented in India. The assessee recharged the said costs to its Indian AE and the same wasreimbursed. The AO treated the said customisation receipts as FTS. The DRP held that these receipts are not independent service and very much part of BSS, thereby, holding that these services being akin to / part of BSS fall within purview of make available and is taxable as FTS. 14. The Id AR submitted that the GST scoping/customisation receipts are akin to the Go-Live charges of GSAP applications received during the earlier AYs and that the coordinate bench has held the said payments as not taxable in India. The Id AR therefore argued that the GST scoping / customisation receipts cannot be treated as FTS to be taxed in India. The Id AR further submitted that the DRP has held the impugned receipts as similar to BSS receipts which are held as not taxable in India by the coordinate bench. The Id AR accordingly argued that the impugned receipts are not taxable on both counts. 15. The Id DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 16. We heard the parties and perused the materials on record. We have already held that the BSS charges are not in the nature of FTS by following the earlier orders in assessee's own case. We notice that the DRP has given a categorical finding that the GST scoping/customisation receipts are similar to BSS charges. Therefore we hold that the GST charges cannot be treated as FTS. Further GST scoping / customisation receipts are incurred towards modifying the existing systems especially the billing module to comply with GST regulations and the said services are carried out by third party service providers. The assessee has made payments towards the same which is allocated to the Indian AE who paid the same to the assessee. In our view the impugned receipts are not towards any services rendered by the assessee which makes available any technical knowledge or skill and cannot be treated as FTS. We have while considering the issue of receiptstowards SUN/GSAP application have held the same as not in the nature of Royalty. The GST scoping/customisation receipts are incurred as an enhancement to the existing systems the same do not fall with Clause (4) of Article 13 since the receipts towards the application is held to be not royalty. It is also relevant to consider the following observations of coordinate bench with respect to treatment of GSAP Go-live charges as royalty in the AY 2012-13- Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 19 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited 9. During the year under consideration the assessee received payments towards cost allocation for GSAP Go-Live application. The AO held that the receipt is a Royalty both under the DTAA and under section 9(1) of the Act. The id. AR submitted that the assessee has entered into an agreement with IBM for procurement of licence of AR further submitted that the cost incurred towards the licence and for Go-Live are to cost basis based on the of users. The Id. AR drew our attention to the findings given by the DRP in para 12.31 of the directions wherein the DRP has held that GSAP maintenance charges are similar to SUN Maintenance Charges to submit that the nature of software being accepted as identical the decision on the issue of SUN software is applicable to GSAP Software also. The Id. AR argued that the licence cost and the Go-live cost are incurred towards obtaining the right to use the GSAP Software and therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis (supra) is applicable for the impugned issue also 10 We heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee during the year under consideration has migrated to GSAP Software and has incurred expenses towards procurement of licence to use the Software also expenses towards customization of the Software for Go-live These expenses have been allocated across the group on a cost to cost basis based on the number of users. The contention of the AO is that the amount received by the assessee is in the nature of Royalty as per explanation-4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act The argument of the assessee is that the amendment to section 9(1)(vi) cannot be read into the DTAA and thus the provisions as per DTAA which is more beneficial to the assessee should only be applied in assexsee's case us per section 90(2) of the Act. In this regard it is relevant to consider the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis (supra)- 100. Also, any ruling on the more expansive language contained in the explanations to section of the Income-tax Act would have to be ignored if it is wider and less beneficial to the assessee than the definition contained in theDTAA, as per section 90(2) of the Income- tax Act read with explanation 4 thereof, and Article 3(2) of the DTAA. Further, the expression \"copyright\" has to be understood in the context of the statute which deals with it, it being accepted that municipal laws which apply in the Contracting States must be applied unless there is any repugnancy to the terms of the DTAA. For all these reasons, the determination of the AAR in Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pty Ltd. (supra) does not state the law correctly and is the aside. 11 From the perusal of above finding, it is clear that the if the definition of Royalty as contained in the DTAA is more beneficial to the assessee then the same should only be applied as per section 90(2) of the Act. The term \"Royalty\" as per Article 13(3) of the DTAA between India and UK reads as under- 3. For the purposes of this Article, the term \"royalties\" means Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 20 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited (a) payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of a literary, artistic or scientific work, including cinematography films or work on films, tape or other means of reproduction for use in connection with radio or television broadcasting, any patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience, and (b) payments of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any industrial, commercial or scientific equipment, other than income derived by an enterprise of a Contracting State from the operation of ships or aircraft in international traffic 12 A plain reading of the above article makes it clear that only when the payment is made towards the right to use the copy right the same would fall within the definition of Royalty under the DTAA. In assessee's case the amount received towards cost allocation of expenses incurred towards acquiring the licence to access GSAP Software and the cost incurred towards modification for Go-live does not result any right to use the copy right, but only the right to use the copy righted software of GSAP Therefore in our considered view, the amount paid cannot be treated as Royalty under Article 13 of the DTAA between India and UK Further the amount received by the assessee is on a cost to cost basis without any income element in it and on that count also, the amount received cannot be treated as taxable in India. In view of this discussion and, respectfully following the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we hold that the receipt towards cost allocation of GSAP licence and Go-live of GSAP application cannot be treated as Royalty and the addition made by the AO in this regard is not tenable Ground No. 11, 12, 14 & 15 are allowed. Ground No. 10 & 13 are left open in view of our decision in Ground No. 11, 12, 14 & 15. 17. In view of these discussions, we hold that the treatment of GST scoping/customisation receipts as FTS is not correct and the addition made in this regard is liable to be deleted. Ground No.21 to 23 are pallowed and Ground No.20 has become academic.” 7.4 Facts and circumstances during the year being identical, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench, we herby allow both these grounds in favour of the assessee. 8 Ground NO. 9, 10 & 11: IT Costs- Reimbursement, Whether constitutes income in the nature of FTS. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 21 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited These grounds are identical to the earlier ground related to GST scoping charges discussed hereinbefore. Ld.AR has requested to keep ground No. 9 open. Brief facts are that the payment for IT costs claimed as reimbursement by the assessee were treated in the nature of consultancy fees and taxed as FTS holding there to be akin to BSS. 8.2 Ld.AR submitted that the cost allocation charges towards IT costs is treated akin to BSS by the Ld.AO/DRP and the issue with respect to treatment of BSS charges as FTS stands covered in favour of the assessee by the following decisions: (i) Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd vs. UOI [2024] 463 ITR (Bom) (ii) AY 2016-17 to 2020-21 vide ITAT Mumbai order dt. 21/07/2025 It is been further stated that the assessee has recovered Rs. 12,00,53,602/- towards reimbursement of IT Costs allocated to SIMPL’s downstream business in connection with providing IT services to improve/facilitate the functioning of various software and systems. There is no change in facts vis-a-vis the earlier assessment years. Even otherwise, if these services are considered akin to BSS as held by AO/DRP, BSS changes have already been held not to the FTS in the hands of the assessee by Hon’ble Bombay High Court and co-ordinate benches for earlier years. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 22 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited 8.3 We have heard the rival submissions. We agree with the arguments of Ld.AR and note that since BSS changes have already been held not to be FTS in the hands of assessee, therefore, these grounds No. 10 & 11 are also allowed in favour of the assessee. 9. Ground No. 12-Incorrect Tax Rate Ld.AR has submitted that the applicable tax rate on income of the assessee (except on interest on income tax refund) is 10% plus surcharge & cess. Ld.AO has mentioned the correct tax rate of 10% in the body of the assessment order (at p. 77), but the tax in the computation sheet has been computed @ 15%. Further, assessee’s rectification application on this issue filed on 14/03/2024 remain pending till date. In view of above facts, we hereby direct Ld.AO to rectify the computation sheet by applying 10% tax rates as applicable. 10. Ground No. 13: Short grant of TDS – Rs. 7,46,161/- . It is contended by Ld.AR that credit of TDS has not been granted to the extent of Rs. 7,46,161/-. The assessee has filed a rectification application on 14/03/2023 alongwith form 26AS and reconciliation statement. In view of above, we hereby direct the Ld.AO to verify the TDS amount and allow credit to the assessee as admissible. 11. Ground No. 14: Interest u/s 234 of the Act Ld.AR has submitted that Ld.AO had deleted the interest u/s 234 in the final assessment order while giving effect to the Ld. DRP’s directions. However, in Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 23 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited the computation sheet dt. 31.10.2023, he has again added interest u/s 234A. It has been explained the due date of filing of returns had been extended during COVID pandemic and therefore, no interest u/s 234A was chargeable in this case. The assessee had also filed a rectification application on 14/03/2024 which is still pending. We, accordingly direct Ld.AO to delete the interest u/s 234A wrongly charged in the computation sheet. 12. Ground No. 15 & 16: Interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act This is a consequential issue and Ld.AO is directed to recomputed the interest as applicable u/s 234B & 234C of the Act. 13. Ground No. 17 : Regarding incorrect amount of refund issued It has been submitted by the Ld.AR that the refund of Rs. 80,59,352/- is stated to have been issued in the computation sheet dt. 31/10/2023, which is incorrect as no refund has actually been issued. The assessee has also filed rectification application on this issue which is still pending. Accordingly, Ld.AO is directed to rectify the mistake after due verification. 14. Ground No. 18: Penalty inititated u/s 270(1)(c) Since this ground is premature, it requires no adjudication. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 30.09.2025 Sd/- Sd/- BEENA PILLAI RENU JAUHRI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 24 ITA No. 4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited Place: Mumbai Dated: 30.09.2025 Divya R. Nandgaonkar Stenographer आदेशकीप्रनतनलनिअग्रेनित/Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अिीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयुक्त / CIT 4. निभागीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकरअिीलीयअनर्करणDR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ाफाईल / Guard file. सत्यानितप्रनत //True Copy// आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER, सहायकिंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकरअिीलीयअनर्करण / ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com "