IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH
G.S. PANNU, V.P. & SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.
Deloitte Haskins & Sells v. Asstt. CIT
I.T.A. No. 6749/Del/2015
29 January, 2021
Appellant by: Percy Pardiwalla, Advocate
Respondent by: Jagdish Singh, Sr. Departmental Representative
Sudhanshu Srivastava, J.M.
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against Order, dated 12-10-2015 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-20, New Delhi (Commissioner (Appeals)) for assessment year 2010-11.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assesse is a Chartered Accountant Firm and derives income from profession.
The return of income for the year was filed declaring an income of Rs. 9,37,46,160. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the assessing officer that the assessee had debited an amount of Rs. 3,14,24,019 towards subscription fees paid to Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (DTT). The assessee was required to give complete details of subscription fees, explain the purpose of making the payment, produce original bills and produce copy of the agreement. The assessee was also asked to establish that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and also to indicate if any tax was deducted at source. It was the submission of the assessee that the assessee firm is a part of global organization of professional service firms and the member firms are located all over the world and engaged in rendering professional services under the local laws of a particular country in the field of accounting, auditing, insolvency law, management consulting, taxation etc. It was further submitted before the assessing officer that Deloittee Touche Tohmatsu (DTT) charges subscription fees to Deloitte Hasking & Sells, Mumbai and this firm in turn charges the member firms (including the assessee) the share of DTT subscription by way of debit notes. It was submitted that the subscription charges were charged on the basis of proportion of revenue earned by the assessee firm to the total revenue of the Deloitte Firms in India. However, the assessing officer was of the view that the subscription fee was not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business/profession and he proceeded to disallow the entire amount of subscription fee paid.