Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (I.T), Circle 1(1), Bangalore. ....Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 16.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 09.08.2019 ORDER PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : The assessee has filed appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)2, Bangalore were different orders passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since both the appeals filed by the 2 ITA Nos.2832 & 2833/Bang/2018 assessee for the Assessment Years have common issues and identical, they are clubbed and heard together and disposed by a consolidated order. For the sake of convenience we shall take up the assessee's appeal in ITA No.2832/Bang/2018 for Assessment Year 201011 and the grounds of appeal raised as under : 3 ITA Nos.2832 & 2833/Bang/2018 4 ITA Nos.2832 & 2833/Bang/2018 2. The Brief of facts of the case are that the assessee is an Indian Company engaged in the business of Design, Development and Implementation and support systems for Information Technology sectors and is also a subsidiary of CGI Technology and Solutions Inc., USA which in turn a wholly owned subsidiary of CGI Group Inc, Canada. Whereas the assessee has entered into a Cost Sharing Agreement with CGI Group being CGI, Canada w.e.f. 1.6.2005 and as per the agreement the assessee has to make payments to CGI, Canada towards net charges. Whereas the CGI, Canada has entered into Agreement with AT&T, US (AT & T), a Foreign Telephone Services Pvt. Ltd. for enhancing virtual net work. The Assessing Officer calculated the taxability of assessee under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act considering the amounts paid to CGI Inc as royalty under the Act Rs.9,86,90,429 and also the DTAA between India and Canada. Whereas the assessee has challenged the jurisdiction and the time limit for initiating proceedings under Section 201 of the Act. The Assessing Officer found that the reimbursement of CGI, Canada net charges is taxable as royalty and relied on the 5 ITA Nos.2832 & 2833/Bang/2018 decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in assessee's own case and further held that the time limit specific in Section 201 of the Act is equally applicable to non residents. Whereas while remitting the amounts towards the CGI net charges, the assessee relied on the ITAT order which has upheld the decision of CIT(Appeals) in respect of CGI Group towards CGI net charges as not taxable in India. Subsequently, the ITAT decision was overruled by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court on 9.6.2014 and the assessee company challenged the Hon'ble High Court order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Whereas the ld. AR pointed out that in the financial year, the payments were made to NonResidents and details were called for on reimbursement of CGI net charges and the assessee company has submitted the details and objected on the jurisdictional issue and furnished the information / details explaining that the statutory period of limitation for initiating proceedings under Section 201 of the Act for FY 200809 to 201011 has expired and A.O finally concluded that the proceedings are not bared by any limitation and passed the order under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act dt.20.03.2017 determining the tax under Section 201(1) Rs.1,04,19,242 and interest under Section 201(1A) of Rs.93,39,248 and raised the demand of Rs.1,97,58,490. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals) whereas in the appellate proceedings the CIT(Appeals) considered the grounds of appeal and submissions on the judicial decisions on the disputed issue of limitation, but 6