9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals), Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai in ITA No. 27/09-10/LTU(A) dated 19- 04-2010 for the assessment year 2006-07. ITA No. 1069/Mds/2010 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(Appeals), Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai in ITA No. 27/09-10 dated 19-04-2010 for the assessment year 2006- 07. All the three appeals relate to the same assessee and involve identical issues, all the three appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Shri K.E.B. Rengarajan, Jr. Standing Counsel represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate represented on behalf of the assessee. 3. It was submitted by the learned Jr. Standing Counsel that in the Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 249/Mds/2009 the first iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Claris Life Science, referred to supra, the finding of the learned CIT(A) on this issue stands confirmed. 6. In ground No.3 in the Revenue's appeal it was the submission that the issue was against the decision of the disallowance of power charges. It was the submission that in the course of assessment the Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of power charges by relying upon the assessment order for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. It was the submission that the learned CIT(A) had deleted the same by following his predecessor's order for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. However, it was fairly conceded by both the sides that the issue had been restored to the file of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uched and were verifiable and were also subject to audit. There were no qualifications or reservations pointed out by the auditors and the payments were incurred exclusively for the purpose of memberships in the various Chambers of Commerce and institutions as a matter of business expediency as the membership enabled the assessee to increase its business relations and prospects. The learned Jr. Standing Counsel vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that the order of the learned CIT(A) was liable to be reversed. 8. In reply, the learned authorised representative submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the decision in the case of CIT v. Sundaram Industries reported in 240 ITR 335 wherein the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed representative submitted that the assessee had reimbursed the actual expenses on account of the repairs and rework charges on the goods exported outside India which were found to be defective. It was the submission that the nature of the work was only job work and there was no fee for technical service or royalty. It was the submission that as it was found that the reimbursement of expenses on the rework and repair charges of the defective brakes to the foreign customers would be cheaper than the procedure of requiring the customers to return the goods and re-export them after repair and rework which would involve higher expenditure on freight and insurance, it decided to let the foreign customers to do the repair and rework and cost of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d any permanent establishment in India. Consequently, the income of the foreign customers would not be taxable in India. Once this is so, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Transmission Corporation of AP Ltd., referred to supra, would squarely apply and no TDS would be liable to be made on the said payments. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the finding of the learned CIT(A) on this issue is on a right footing and does not call for any interference. Consequently, ground No. 5 of the Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 249/Mds/2010 as also ground No.2 of the Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 1166/Mds/2010 stand dismissed. 13. In regard to the assessee's appeal in ITA No. 1069/Mds/2010, it was submitted by the learned aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the plant and machinery only for the year in which the capacity expansion has taken place which has resulted in the substantial increase in the installed capacity. In the assessee's case this took place in the assessment year 2005-06 and the assessee has also claimed the additional depreciation during that year and the same has also been allowed. Each assessment year is separate and independent assessment year. The provisions of section 32 of the Act do not provide for carry forward of the residual additional depreciation, if any. In the circumstances, the finding of the learned CIT(A) on this issue is on a right footing and does not call for any interference. Consequently, ground No.1 of the assessee's appeal stands dismissed. 16. In re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
