9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for technical service as per the provisions of Section 9 (1) (vii) of the Act. In pursuance to the said letter/show cause notice, order dated 6.3.2014 was passed under Section 201 (1) and 201 (1A) of the Act. The initiation of proceedings under letter dated 31.1.2014 or order passed on 6.3.2014 is clearly beyond four years. Therefore, following the decisions of the coordinate Benches of this Court in Bharat Hotels Ltd. [ 2015 (12) TMI 1469 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and The Execution Engineer, M/s. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board [ 2020 (8) TMI 619 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] we answer the first substantial question of law in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Counsel for the appellant-assessee and learned counsel Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned counsel for the respondent revenue. Perused the appeal papers. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would submit that the appeal relates to the financial years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. The assessee company is engaged in the business of dairy products and during the financial years stated above it had made certain payments towards consultancy charges to a Singapore based company. Under letter dated 31.1.2014 appellant was asked to explain as to why payment made to the Singapore based company i.e., MJR Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., during the above stated financial years should not be treated as fees for technical services as per the provisions of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1A) of the Act, four years would be the limitation or reasonable time. Learned Senior Counsel points out that the order passed on 6.3.2014 under Section 201 (1) and 201 (1A) of the Act relates to financial years 2006-07 to 2008-09. Thus, he submits that order passed on 6.3.2014 is beyond four years from 31.3.2009 i.e., the end of financial year of 2008-09. Thus, learned Senior Counsel would submit that if this Court accepts the contention of the appellant on the question of limitation, in respect of which substantial question of law No.1 is framed, it need not go into other substantial questions of law. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal. 6. Learned counsel Sri E.I. Sanmathi, for the revenue would contend that no time limit is prescri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
