9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charges towards reimbursement of expenses cannot be included in income? ii) Whether when income is taxed on gross basis, non inclusion of charges towards reimbursement of expenses would be in violation of law as it would tantamount to taxation of income partly on net basis? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in approving the deletion of levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act? 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has stated that the first and second question relate to the same issue namely whether reimbursement of expenses would be liable to be included in the income and hence they are taken up together. 4. The assessee had entered into a contract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal held that though there was a conflict between the judgment of the Kerala High Court, which was relied upon by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Dunlop Rubber Company Limited {142 ITR 493} it would follow a view which was favourable to the assessee, consistent with the judgment in Vegetable Products Limited {88 ITR 192}. 6. The question as to whether a reimbursement for expenses would form part of the taxable income is not resintegra in so far as this Court is concerned. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft {310 ITR 320 (Bom.)} a Division Bench of this Court held that it was in agreement with the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hold that sharing of expenses of the research utilised by the subsidiaries as well as the head office organisation would not be income which would be assessable to tax. A similar view was taken in CIT v. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd., (supra). Consequently, in view of the judgment in Siemens, the first and second issue would not raise any substantial question of law since they are covered against the Revenue. 7. In so far as the third question is concerned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has fairly stated that it is covered against the Revenue by the judgment of the Division Bench in Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) V/s. NGC Network Asia LLC {(2009) 222 CTR 86 (Bom)} 7. In view of the statement, the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
