Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 1206 - HC - Income TaxRoyalty (inclusive of technical guidance fee - treated as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure - Held that:- Answered in favour of the Assessee in the Assessee’s own case [2015 (2) TMI 368 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Disallowance made by AO under Section 14A read with Rule 8D - Held that:- It is seen that the ITAT has restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) to rework the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act in the light of the decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2011 (11) TMI 267 - Delhi High Court ]. Provision for warranty - Held that:- Assessee’s own case for AY 2002-03 this Court [2014 (7) TMI 1227 - DELHI HIGH COURT] decided the question in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. In the aforementioned decision, reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] Discharge the initial onus of reasonability of quantum of model fee - Held that:- ITAT has found that the payment made by the Assessee to HMCL was for the development of the model and that the market research and study was only to ascertain what kind of model was required by the Assessee. Once HMCL developed the model as per the specification of the Assessee, it gave the complete technical information and knowledge in relation to the model to the Assessee. Thereafter, the Assessee carried out the research and development for the absorption of technology of the new model and indigenization of spare parts. Consequently, the presumption of the AO that there was a joint activity was factually incorrect. This Court is of the view that the view taken by the ITAT appears to be a plausible one and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the Court declines to frame the question of law on this issue. Appeal admitted on question iv:- Whether on the facts and circumstances, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that by export of specified models to specified countries, the Assessee company had benefited and therefore by deleting addition of ₹ 12.19 crores made by AO on account of export commission without appreciating the fact that the Assessee has to export motorcycles to underdeveloped countries in very restrictive environment and on such terms and conditions which were detrimental to the Assessee and were for the benefit of the subsidiaries of the AE?
|