2022 (12) TMI 946

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e addition made by the AO. Thus, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) has to be reversed. Accordingly, we reverse the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and allow the appeal filed by the Revenue.
Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member And Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member Appellant by : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT Respondent by : None ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, dated 20.04.2020 relevant to the assessment year 2008-09. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 on 25.09.2008 declaring a loss of ₹.2,36,07,873/-. The case was selected .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Assessee furnished information vide letter dated 27.7.2015. Further, a notice dated 6.10.2015 was issued to the assessee requiring him to appear on 19.10.2015. The assessee did not appear. After considering the orders of the Hon'ble ITAT and the information furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act dated 18.03.2016, wherein, the addition of ₹.15,46,88,000/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has been again confirmed. On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. By referring to the grounds of appeal, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t case, the appellant firm had acquired the remake rights from one of its partners i.e., M/s. Gemini Industries & Imaging Limited on 01.04.2006, on which date the capital account of the partner has been credited with the value of remake rights. On 01.04.2006, there is no provision to deduct tax at source on royalty U/s.194J of the Act since TDS on royalty was introduced only with effect from 13.07.2006. Therefore, prima facie, the appellant firm is not liable to deduct tax at source on the sum of Rs.15,46,88,000/- credited to its partner's capital account on 01.04.2006. Thus, the appellant firm has not violated the provisions of Section 194J of the Act and accordingly disallowance U/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act is not warranted. Hence, I am o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X