9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in its decision regarding the issue of inclusion of Modvat in opening stock as rendered for A. Y. 2001-02 in the light of section 145A is consistent with its decisions deleting modvat from the valuation of closing stock rendered for preceding assessment years A/y 1997-1998 and A/y 1989-99? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition on account of royalty payment made to Johnson & Johnson USA, persons referred to u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act, though the assessee had not discharged its onus to prove the reasonableness of such payments? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e payments of royalty to its parent company. The Assessing Officer held that the payment was excessive and partly disallowed the payments. This on the ground that it is excessive as the respondent-assessee had not established that the payment was not excessive. (b) Being aggrieved, the respondent-assessee carried the issue in appeal to the CIT(A). By order dated 11th October, 2004, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal. This on the ground that the assessment under which royalty was paid by the appellant to its Associated Enterprises was approved by the Reserve Bank of India. Further, for the earlier years also, the revenue had accepted the same. (c) Being aggrieved, revenue carried the issue in appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Tribunal in upholding the order of the CIT(A), that the payment of royalty made the Associated Enterprises is not excessive, is a finding of fact which is not shown to be perverse. Thus, the question of law as framed, does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Therefore, not entertained. 5 Re: Question (c): The impugned order of the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the respondent-assessee for depreciation on testing equipment by following its decision in the case of M/s. N R Jet Enterprises Ltd.,(sister concern of the respondentassessee) rendered on 28th May, 2008 in ITA/4474/MUM/2004. Nothing has been brought on record by the revenue to indicate that the aforesaid decision in M/s. N R. Jet Enterprises Ltd., (supra) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
