2018 (5) TMI 1875

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... TMI 524 - SUPREME COURT] - HELD THAT:- The discussion of the lower appellate authority i.e. the CIT(A) and the ITAT would disclose that they went by the previous assessment year s decisions for A.Y. 2003-2004. The assessee entered into a new agreement in 2005. In these given circumstances, the omission by the lower appellate authorities is erroneous. The issue is therefore remitted for recons .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessee says is running royalty and model fee) falls into capital stream. The assessee after accepting notice relied upon a previous judgment of the Supreme Court for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 1999- 2000, 2001-2002, 2003-2004 and 2005-2006 (reported as Honda Siel Cars India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad (2017) 395 ITR 713). It is submitted that although in respect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... therefore remitted for reconsideration by the ITAT which shall proceed to decide the question whether the payments made towards model fee/running royalty characterised lump sum payment, by the ITAT in the impugned order fall in the revenue or capital stream. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. Parties shall appear before the ITAT on 21st May, 2018. - - TaxTMI .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X