9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be entitled to deduction thereof. Income accrued in India - attempt to tax the income in the hands of the assessee in relation to the assessee's units situated at USA and UK - Held that:- Nothing is available on record to indicate any challenge by the Revenue to the order of the Tribunal for Assessment Years 199697 and 1997-98 before any higher forum. It therefore follows that the orders of the Tribunal on the above issue for the Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98, have been accepted by the Revenue. Therefore, the Revenue can have no grievance with the impugned order of the Tribunal as it merely follows its earlier orders which have been accepted. Further, no distinguishing features in the present Assessment Year from that existing in the Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98 have been brought to our notice which would justify our taking a different view on this issue for the subject Assessment Year. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.778 OF 2015 - - - Dated:- 18-12-2018 - AKIL KURESHI M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. Mr. Anil Singh, ASG a/w Mr. P.C. Chhotaray, Ms. Gitika Gandhi for the appellant Mr. Jehangir Mistri, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Atul Jasani for the respondent P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh after considering the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) . Thus, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer to be decided in the light of the Special Bench judgment in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. The Revenue's grievance in this respect is two fold. It was contended that the issue was raised for the first time before the Tribunal and the same should not have been permitted. Secondly, the view of the Tribunal in case of Reliance Industries Ltd. was challenged before the High Court. The High Court in a judgment dated 15.04.2009 in Income Tax Appeal No. 1299 of 2008 had held that no question of law in this respect arises and thereby confirmed the judgment of the Tribunal. It was pointed out that against this judgment of the High Court, the Department had approached the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had held that a question of law did arise. The Supreme Court framed a question and placed the matter back before the High Court. We are informed that this appeal is still pending. 4. On the other hand, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer, the assessee had produced the separate terms of agreement for providing such knowhow, showing that the same would be valid for a period of 5 years from the date of commencement of the regular production. The assessee had relied upon the decisions of this Court in case of CIT Vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Pvt. Ltd. 123, ITR 538 and in case of CIT Vs. Service Station Equipment Pvt. Ltd. 132 ITR 130 , besides others. The Assessing Officer did not dispute the applicability of the ratio of said decisions. He however recorded that such decisions were rendered prior to the amendment in Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by virtue of Finance Act, 1998, which provides that such technical knowhow in the nature of intangible asset would be eligible for depreciation. Counsel for the assessee had placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Alembic Chemicals Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 177 ITR 377 before us in this context. 7. Upon hearing Counsel for the parties, we find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has correctly appreciated the legal position. As noted, the Assessing Officer also did not seriously dispute that the exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact as per Article 24(2) of the DTAA only deduction in respect of taxes on income paid in USA should be allowed as deduction from the tax payable in India, and therefore this decision of the Tribunal is perverse on facts? 9. The Court in this context opined as under : 3. Re. Question (1) : (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the above issue by following its order in the case of the same Respondent Assessee for Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98. (b) On specifically being asked, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue, states that nothing is available on record to indicate any challenge by the Revenue to the order of the Tribunal for Assessment Years 199697 and 1997-98 before any higher forum. It therefore follows that the orders of the Tribunal on the above issue for the Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98, have been accepted by the Revenue. Therefore, the Revenue can have no grievance with the impugned order of the Tribunal as it merely follows its earlier orders which have been accepted. Further, no distinguishing features in the present Assessment Year from that existing in the Assessment Ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
