9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tributed technical knowhow for the purpose of generating electricity, it does so on behalf of the owner of the plant namely the SPCL. We find that the interpretation of agreement between the appellant and the SPCL, as given by the Assessing Officer, the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, is perfectly legal and valid and that there is no perversity in the finding rendered by all the three Authorities. We cannot re-appreciate the factual position to arrive at a different conclusion. - Decided against assessee. - Tax Case (Appeal) No. 860 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 4-4-2018 - T. S. Sivagnanam And N. Seshasayee, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr.S.Sriraman For the Respondent : Mr.T.Ravikumar and Mr.R.Sureshkumar JUDGMENT Was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax Act, 1961. 4. Before we proceed further to consider the merits of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, we wish to point out that the findings rendered by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 30.11.2004 have been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by order dated 29.3.2005 and further confirmed by the Tribunal by the impugned order. All the three Authorities have concurrently held on facts against the assessee. Therefore, the question would be as to whether this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 260A of the said Act, can re- appreciate the factual findings. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant is right in submitting that if there is a perversity in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CL). The Assessing Officer examined the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the assessee and the SPCL and found that the appellant is only a contractor and the power plant for generation and distribution of electricity is owned by the SPCL 9. The assessee contended before the Assessing Officer that the owner of the plant namely the SPCL cannot operate their own plant, as they never had the technical expertise to operate the plant. 10. The Assessing Officer had done a thorough factual exercise to consider the correctness of the said submission and found that M/s.Covanta USA owns 70% of the shares in the SPCL and that M/s.Covanta USA also owns 100% of the shares in the assessee through its Mauritius subsidiary. Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntered into between the appellant and the SPCL, clearly held that the appellant is not the owner of the power plant and that it does only maintenance work, for which, it is given a fee. Even assuming that the appellant contributed technical knowhow for the purpose of generating electricity, it does so on behalf of the owner of the plant namely the SPCL. We find that the interpretation of agreement between the appellant and the SPCL, as given by the Assessing Officer, the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, is perfectly legal and valid and that there is no perversity in the finding rendered by all the three Authorities. In such circumstances, we cannot re-appreciate the factual position to arrive at a different conclusion. Thus, for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
