IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 4219 and 4240/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 and 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner of BCD Travel Services BV Income-tax (IT) - 1.2.2, 400 Europalaan, Mumbai Utrecht – 3526KS, Vs. The Netherlands, Nederland, Not Listed, 999999 [PAN: AAECB9053H]

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Present for:

Assessee : Ms. Hirali Desai, Shri Hardik Nirmal and Ms. Tejal Saraf, CAs Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025

O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These two appeals filed by Revenue are against the orders of CIT (A) 55, Mumbai, vide order Nos. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1075169546(1) and ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1075170902(1), dated 28.03.2025 passed against the assessment orders by International Taxation, Tax Circle-1(2)(2), Mumbai, u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 21.01.2020 for Assessment Year 2017-18 and dated

01.06.2021 for Assessment Year 2018-19, respectively.

2. Grounds taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under:

I. ITA No. 4219/MUM/2025 [A Y 2017-18]

i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.

CIT(A) has erred in not constituting amount of Rs. 13,80,75,471 received by the assessee for services rendered under the Global Framework Network Agreement (‘GNFA') as royalty income, taxable u/s. 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act').

ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.

CIT(A) has erred in not considering the said income as royalty as per clause 2 read with clause 3(a) of Article 12 of the DTAA of India and Netherlands.

iii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in relying on the order of the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors BV v. DCIT [111 taxmann.com 163 (Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal)] which is not acceptable to the revenue and appeal against the same is pending before Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the issue has not attained stage of finality.

II. ITA No.4240/MUM/2025 [A Y 2018-19]

i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.

CIT(A) has erred in not constituting amount of Rs. 11,32,12,904/- received by the assessee for services rendered under the Global Framework Network Agreement (‘GNFA') as royalty income, taxable u/s. 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act').

ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.

CIT(A) has erred in not considering the said income as royalty as per clause 2 read with clause 3(a) of Article 12 of the DTAA of India and Netherlands.

iii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in relying on the order of the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors BV v. DCIT [111 taxmann.com 163 (Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal}] which is not acceptable to the revenue and appeal against the same is pending before Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the issue has not attained stage of finality.

2.1. Both the appeals by the Revenue are on identical grounds relating to one single issue in respect of receipt of income in the nature of fees which has been claimed to be not taxable in India as royalty u/s. 9(1)(vi) of the Act and as per clause (2) read with clause 3(a) of Article 12 of the India-Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), received by the assessee for services rendered under the Global Framework Network Agreement (GNFA). Since the issues are identical except for variation in the quantum of addition made for which ld. CIT(A)

has given relief, we take up both the appeals together by passing this consolidated order. For the purpose of drawing facts, we take up the appeal for AY 2017-18 and the observations and findings shall apply mutatis mutandis to the ap