9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice charges - relying upon M. Janardhana Rao Vs. JCIT [2005 (1) TMI 14 - SUPREME Court] – the order of the Tribunal is upheld – Decided against revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. - 111 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 23-9-2014 - Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala And Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,JJ. For the Appellant : A. N. Mahajan,S. Chopra For the Respondent : P. K. Jain, Amitabh Agarwal ORDER (Per Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra, J) The present appeal is filed by the Department under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the impugned order dated 07.10.1999 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in I.T.A. No. 388(Del)/93 for the assessment year 1985-86. On 22.11.2006, a coordinate Bench has admitted the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved in advance by the assessee from its dealers on the basis of the service agreement. The assessee has shown as service charges, but the dealer has shown it as a part of the cost of the T.V. sets and without any mention in the bills as service charges for the second year. No warranty cards were issued. He also submitted that the assessee simply diverted its profits in the name of service charges without providing any such service. At the strength of written submission, the learned counsel has justified the order passed by the A.O. On the other hand, Shri P.K. Jain, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Abu Bakht, the learned counsel for the assessee has justified the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. He submitted that the ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment year under consideration. It was meant for the future service, as rightly observed by both the appellate authorities. When it is so then we decline to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, who is the final fact finding authority, as per the ratio laid down in the following cases :- (i) M. Janardhana Rao Vs. JCIT (2005)273 ITR 50 SC; and (ii) Kamla Ganpati Vs. Controller of Estate Duty 253 ITR 692 SC. In view of above, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby sustained alongwith the reasons mentioned therein. The next grievance of the assessee is pertaining to deletion the addition of ₹ 26,750/-. The said amount was treated, during the assessement year under consideration, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
