IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM &

MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 6734/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

DCIT(IT)-4(2)(2), Stantec UK Limited Room No. 627, Kautilya Bhawan, 240, Cygent Court Lakeside Drive Bandra Kurla Complex, Centre Park, Warrington, United Vs.

Mumbai-400051. Kingdom, GB WA11RN, United Kingdom-999999 PAN: AAHCM3429K Appellant) : Respondent C.O. No. 26/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Stantec UK Limited, DCIT(IT)-4(2)(2), 240, Cygent Court Lakeside Drive Room No. 627, Kautilya Bhawan, Centre Park, Warrington, United Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs.

Kingdom, GB WA11RN, Mumbai-400051.

United Kingdom-999999 PAN: AAHCM3429K Appellant) : Respondent I.T.A. No. 6735/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

DCIT(IT)-4(2)(2), Stantec UK Limited Room No. 627, Kautilya Bhawan, Vs. 240, Cygent Court Lakeside Drive Bandra Kurla Complex, Centre Park, Warrington, United C.O. No. 27/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Ajit Jain(Virtually Present) /

Shri Siddesh Chaugule, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02.2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

These appeals by the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Pune-13 [for short 'the CIT(A)] dated 09.01.2024 for the AY 2018-19 and dated 12.01.2024 for AY 2019-20. The common grounds contended by the Revenue in both the appeals are as under: -

i. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Led CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the services provided by the assessee do not qualify as Fees for Technical Service under Article 13 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and UK by referring to the Article 13(4) of the India UK DTAA when the fact is that assessee had made available their technical knowledge/experience/skill to the recipient and the same is of enduring nature capable of being utilized independently by the recipient without recourse to the service provider"?.

ii. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in referring to the ITAT order of AY 2012-13 in ITA No. 961/MUM/2016 dated 29.12.2011 where the fact of the issue was different since the agreement which was in force w.e.f 01.01.2017 was different from the agreement and the claim of services for AY 2012-13"?

iii. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in referring to the old and new agreement when the old agreement was not produced and brought to the knowledge of the AO during assessment stage"?

iv. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that reimbursements cannot be brought to tax in terms of the Act ignoring the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Centrica India Offshore Pvt. Ltd. W.P.(C) No. 6807/2012) wherein the Hon'ble High Court ruled that of mark up by itself is not determinative to characterize the payment as reimbursement and cannot negate the nature of transaction?"

v. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the reimbursement of expenses claimed was not FT'S without appreciating the facts that the assessee has not proved that the same was not at cost-o-cost basis?”

2. The assessee is a company registered in the United Kingdom (UK) and the tax resident of UK. The assessee is engaged in the business of consulting, engineering, construction and management of wet infrastructure projects in the world. Stantec Resource Net India Pvt. Ltd. is an Associated Enterprise (AE) of the assessee to whom the assessee has rendered certain technical and other services. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2018-19 on 30.11.2018 declaring a total income of Nil and for AY 2019-20 declared total income of Rs. 6,12,85,79