K.S.S. Prasad Rao, J.M. - (1.) THIS appeal was filed by the assessee having been aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 3-4-2000, for the assessment year 1999-2000 in the case of assessee.
(2.) The assessee has raised the following issues in its grounds of appeal: 1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the appellant had obligation of deducting tax on the amount alleged to be paid to M/s. Robert Fleming and Co. Ltd., London and M/s. International Finance Corporation, Washington (here-in-after referred to as the 'Lead Managers'). 2.0 That on, the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to other grounds, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the orders passed by the DCIT (TDS) under sections 195, 201(1) and 201(1A) all dated 8-12-1999 are well reasanable Lime and not barred by limitation. Hat on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A),,vas not justified in holding tHat the services rendered by Lead Managers were in the nature of technical, managerial and consultancy services as specified in the Explanation to section 9(1)(vii) and management & underwriting commission and selling concession retained by them were fees for technical services as per section 9(1)(vii) and management & underwriting commission and selling concession retained by them were fees for technical services as per section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.
(3.) 0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that, the impugned under writing commission and selling concession did not accrue or arise in India and hence there could be no deduction of tax thereon.;