IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM &

SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM I.T.A. No. 3053/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 3049/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 5509/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 7313/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

M/s Shell International DCIT (International Taxation)-

Petroleum Co. Ltd. , 4(2)(1), C/o B S R & Co. LLP, 5^th Floor, 17^th Floor, Room No. 1708, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mumbai-400021.

Mahalakshmi, Mumbai-400011.

PAN: AAICS0357B Appellant) : Respondent Appellant /Assessee by : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Adv. / Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ms. Snigdha Gautam, AR and Ms. Reema Garewal Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 06.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02.2025 O R D E R Per Bench :

These appeals by the assessee are against the separate final assessment order of the Deputy. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)-4(2)(1), Mumbai (in short "the AO") passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 02.02.2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 & AY 2013-14, dated 30.06.2017 for AY 2014-15 and dated 16.10.2018 for AY 2015-16. Since the issues contended in these appeals are common, these appeals are heard together and disposed of through common order. The issues contended by the assessee in these appeals through various grounds are tabulated below –

2. The assessee in all these appeals also raised an additional ground on the legal issue that the final assessment order of the AO is barred by limitation by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Roca Bathroom Products (P) Ltd. (2022) 445 ITR 537 (Mad.). However, during the course of hearing, the ld. AR did not press for the admission of the additional ground and accordingly the same is not admitted for adjudication.

ITA No.3053/Mum/2017 – AY 2012-13

3. The assessee is a Shell Group Company incorporated in UK and it is in the business of providing consultancy services to various Shell operating company. The assessee has entered into Cost Contribution Agreement (CCA) with various Shell concerns including Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. (SIMPL) for the provision of Business Support Services (BSS). The BSS are primarily in the nature of Management Support Services and the cost incurred towards rendering of such services is allocated among Shell Group concerns using the allocation key on a cost to cost basis. The AO held the BSS Arrangement as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) in the hands of the assessee and accordingly brought the same to tax. The AO in this regard placed reliance on the Ruling of Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in the case of SIMPL (application no. 833 of 2009 dated 17.01.2012). The AO further treated the amount received by the assessee towards usage charges of SUN Maintenance Software treating the same as royalty. The AO also treated the receipt towards cost allocation for GSAP license and Go-Live application as royalty. The assessee raised further objections against the draft assessment order of the AO, before the DRP who confirmed the addition made by the AO towards BSS services based on the AAR Ruling. The DRP also confirmed the treatment of usage charges of SUN Maintenance Software and treatment of cost allocation for GSAP license and Go-Live application as royalty. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO as per the directions of the DRP.

Treatment of BSS as FTS

4. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. With regard to treatment of BSS as FTS in the hands of the assessee the ld. AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2009-10 in ITA No. 1253/Mum/2014 dated 10.09.2024 since the facts for the year under consideration are i