9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment to be deleted - decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 2783/DEL/2015 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2018 - Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri Anadee Nath Misshra, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Smt. Lalitha Krishnamurthy, CA For the Revenue : Sh. M. Nand Kumar Shate, Sr.DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Revenue has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order dated 27.1.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2010-11. 2. The grounds raised in this Appeal read as under:- i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,64,00,000/- made by AO on account of disallowance of royalty paid. ii) The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... response to the same, assessee AR submitted that assessee has already submitted its reply vide letter dated 29.11.2012 stating therein that Royalty is paid to Caryaire Equipments India Pvt. Ltd. The copy of technical services and License agreement is enclosed herewith. The said reply of the assessee was considered by the AO and by placing the reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Southern Switch Gear Ltd. vs. CIT 232 ITR 359, AO treated the royalty payment of ₹ 1,64,00,000/- as capital expenditure and added back to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved with the AO s action, the Assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 27.1.2015 has partly allowed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l issue in which the said order of the Ld. CIT(A) was upheld by the Tribunal. Therefore, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has requested to dismiss the Appeal of the Revenue by upholding the action of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records available with us, especially the impugned order as well as the case law cited by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee, as aforesaid. We find that Ld. CIT(A) on the identical issue has elaborately discussed and adjudicated the issue in dispute vide para no. 4.2 at page no. 13 of the impugned order and rightly deleted the addition. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-10 on the issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the considered view that the facts of the present case are quite different from the facts in the case of Southern Switch gear Ltd. (relied upon by the AO in his order) in which there was a collaboration agreement with a foreign company and payments were made on lump sum basis in five equal installments. We find that on exactly similar issue the predecessor of the Ld. CIT(A) in the assessment year 2008-09 has allowed the payment of royalty to the assessee and this decision of the Ld. CIT(A) was upheld by the Tribunal vide order dated 06.1.2016, as aforesaid. However, Ld. DR could not controvert this factual position. In the background of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any illegality or i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
