9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Article 226 of the Constitution of India while dealing with the orders of the Settlement Commission are categorical, it is only in the case where there is manifest and egregious findings of law that are erroneous; which call for interference. The other grounds on which the Court is permitted to interfere with the Settlement Commission’s findings are non-application of mind or lack of bonafides, or as emphasised in ‘CIT, Mumbai vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [2001 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] and ‘Brij Lal & Others vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2010 (10) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT] where no true and full disclosure was made by the assessee. - W.P.(C) 7216/2018 - - - Dated:- 17-7-2018 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. A.K. CHAWLA JJ. Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices were rendered by the respondent to SESI. A survey was conducted on 04.01.2016 under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act of the respondent in its office at NOIDA, U.P. As a consequence of the survey, the respondent applied under Section 245C(1) of the Act for the period in question (A.Y. 2009-10 to 201415). 3. An order was made under Section 245D(2C) of the Act and the Commissioner of Income Tax furnished a report under Rule 9 of the Income Tax Settlement Commission Rules. After considering the materials on record, the Settlement Commission rendered its findings. The issues which it dealt with concerned (i) the existence of a permanent establishment; (ii) the TDS on payment of salary, wages etc.; (iii) royalty for supply of soft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. DCIT; 382 ITR 156 (Del) and with DIT vs. Infrasoft Ltd., 220 Taxman 273 as far as the second issue urged with respect to royalty on software is concerned. 7. On the third issue i.e. exclusion of the outstanding receivable of the Jharsuguda project, this is what the Settlement Commission had to say:- We have considered the submissions made by the A.R and find considerable force in the argument that at least on account of outstanding receivables of Jharusugoda project there is absolutely no case for an adjustment as the applicant has already shown super-normal profits of 500%. We are therefore of the view that no adjustment is warranted on account of outstanding receivables in the case of Jharsugoda project for A.Y. 2010-11 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
