Held that the mandate of the Assessing Officer was to follow the directions of the Tribunal whereby the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for specific adjudication. The scope of the remand was limited to seeing whether the payment made for reimbursement fell within the ambit and scope of “fees for technical services” under article 13(4)(c). The Assessing Officer instead of following the direction of the Tribunal had proceeded to treat the payment as royalty which could not be sustained. Though the Commissioner (Appeals) had accepted this fact, and had co-terminous power with the Assessing Officer, he had chosen not to decide the issue. The assessment order and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) were unsustainable and deserved to be quashed. Held that the reimbursement of user charges for the “Lotus Notes” software could not be treated as “fees for technical services” under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. (AY.2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09)
Foseco International Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) (2023)107 ITR 222 (Mum) (Trib)
S. 143(3) : Assessment-Powers-Tribunal remanding matter to Assessing Officer to consider whether certain receipts constitute fees for technical services-Assessing Officer treating receipts as royalty-Beyond scope of remand-Reimbursement of expenses for use of software-Not fees for technical service-DTAA-India-USA [S. S. 9(1)(vi), 9(1)(vii), art. 13(4)]