IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA No. 1027/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year. 2021-22 Shell International B.V., Assistant C/o Shell India Markets Commissioner of Private Limited Vs Income Tax, BG House, Lake Boulevard, Circle(Internation Hiranandani Business Park al Taxation)-1, Powai, Mumbai-400076 Ahmedabad India PAN No. AAHCS9360D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee Represented: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &

Shri Parin Shah, A.R.

Revenue Represented: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 16-01-2025 Date of pronouncement : 15-04-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the final assessment order dated 18-10-2023 passed under section 143[3] rws 144C[13] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’] by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax relating to the Assessment Year 2021-22.

2. The Assessee has raised the following Grounds of Appeal:-

1. The learned AO has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, in issuing the final assessment order dated 18 October 2023, beyond the time-limit as prescribed under section 153 of the Act. The final assessment order is, thus, time-barred and liable to be quashed.

2 The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law and learned DRP has further erred in confirming the action of the learned AO on the facts and in law in assessing the total income of the Appellant at INR 185,49,51,884 by making total amount of impugned additions amounting to INR 147,18,47,338.

3. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law and learned DRP has further erred in confirming the action of the learned AO on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of INR 5,90,40,520 received from Shell India Markets Private Limited ('SIMPL"), and Shell Energy India Private Limited ('SEIPL') for CHR Recruitment fees as Fees for Technical Services ('FTS') under Article 12 of India-Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'

or 'Tax Treaty').

4. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law and learned DRP has further erred in confirming the action of the learned AO on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of INR 20,99,21,002 received from SIMPL, SEIPL., BG Exploration and Production India Limited ('BGEPIL') and Hazira Port Private Limited ('HPPL') for Internal Communication Fees as FTS under Article

12 of India-Netherlands DTAA.

5. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law and learned DRP has further erred in confirming the action of the learned AO on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of INR 10,84,56,771 received from SIMPL, SEIPL, BGEIPL, and HPPL for Remuneration and Benefit fees as FTS under Article 12 of India-Netherlands DTAA.

6. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law and learned DRIP has further erred in confirming the action of the learned AG on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of INR 17,81,78,981 received from SIMPL, SEIPL, BGEIPL, and HPPL for Talent and Development Fees as FTS under Article 12 of India-Netherlands DTAA.

7. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law and learned DRP has further erred in confirming the action of the learned AO on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recoveries of INR 55,30,93,228 received from SIMPL, SEIPL and BGEIPL for Group Controller - External Information Services ('EIS') as FTS under Article 12 of India-Netherlands DTAA.

8. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law and learned DRP has further erred in confirming the action of the learned AO on the facts and in law in treating the cost recoveries of INR 26,19,90,281 received from SIMPL, BGEIPL, Tata Consultancy Services Limited and Wipro Limited for Real Estate and Corporate Travel Services as FTS under Article 12 of India-Netherlands DTAA.

9. The learned AO has erred on the