9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr M.P.Rastogi and Mr K.N.Ahuja, Advocates. O R D E R 1. Admit. Mr M.P.Rastogi, Advocate accepts notice. 2. The two questions of law, which the Revenue argues in the present appeal for the Assessment Years 2005-2006 & 2006-2007, are as follows:- 1. Whether assessee was right in reallocating expenditure/income on account of royalty from Jammu Unit to Corporate Division? 2. If the answer to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of "improved sachet pouch with improved additional gusset on both sides of the sachet pouch with a scoring line in the form of laser cut". The Assessee had paid royalty to the tune of Rs. 4.25 crores and had received a sub-licence income of Rs. 1.96 crores. 5. The Assessee has three manufacturing Units, i.e. Malanpur, Jammu and Noida. The original income declared was 'Nil' for the relevant Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the confirmations from the trade customers from whom the advance against sale is received in this year and in the absence of confirmations, the A.O. treated the amount of Rs. 2,32,13,640/- as income of the appellant under Section 68 of the Act. It is observed from the details filed before the A.O. that the ledger accounts of the concerned parties were filed before the A.O. as well as during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant had received the advances are the regular customers of the appellant in the preceding as well as subsequent years. The trade advances received by the appellant have been adjusted against the sales made to them in the subsequent years. Few of the customers from whom substantial amount of advance is received are limited companies. It is not the case of the A.O. that the advance is outstanding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n question, the fee was revised mid-term to Rs. 2 crores per month. The A.O. add Rs. 9 crores, upon an understanding that the licence fee increased was arbitrary. The CIT(Appeals), however, deleted this entire amount. The Revenue's Appeal succeeded substantially to the extent of Rs. 6 crores. 8. Having regard to these circumstances, the Court finds no justification to interfere with the ITAT's fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
