9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is essentially a question of fact - issue was good for debate up to the Tribunal but not thereafter for the High Court in reference jurisdiction under section 256(1) - application is found to be devoid of merit - 76 of 1999 - - - Dated:- 5-1-2005 - A. M. SAPRE and ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI JJ. Ku. V. Kasrekar for the assessee. R. L. Jain with Ku. V. Mandlik for the Commissioner. JUDGMENT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asrekar, learned counsel for the assessee and Shri R. L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. V. Mandlik, learned counsel for the Revenue. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, we too are of the view that application does not involve any referable question of law to this court for being answered on the merits under section 256(1) of the Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r services rendered by it could be disallowed by the Tribunal by invoking section 40A(2) ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in invoking the provisions of section 40A(2) in the present case when both the companies concerned were public limited companies ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether a particular charge paid as service charge can be deducted or not when it is paid to the same company? Is essentially a question of fact. It was decided on the basis of agreements and documents filed by the assessee in support of their case. This issue was good for debate up to the Tribunal but not thereafter for the High Court in reference jurisdiction under section 256(1) of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
