|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 886 Records
-
2013 (3) TMI 853
The appellate tribunal ITAT Chennai dismissed the Revenue's appeal related to the assessment year 2009-10. The appeal challenged the deletion of a disallowance of Rs. 4,83,59,772 under section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) based on a similar case for the assessment year 2008-09. The appeal was dismissed on March 18, 2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 852
Issues Involved:
1. Payment over and above the document price.
2. Compensation paid to vacate unauthorized occupants.
3. Computation of short-term capital gains on the sale of 2.96 acres of land.
4. Treatment of retention money.
Summary:
Issue 1: Payment over and above the document price
The Revenue contested the payment of Rs. 1,86,61,000/- made by the assessee over the document price of Rs. 1,38,82,000/-. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)'s decision, stating that the additional payment was genuine and part of the cost of acquisition. The guideline value set by the State Government does not necessarily reflect the market value, and the additional payment was necessary to acquire the land.
Issue 2: Compensation paid to vacate unauthorized occupants
The assessee paid Rs. 1,15,95,500/- to unauthorized occupants to vacate the land. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) that this payment was genuine and part of the cost of acquisition. The payment was essential for the assessee to gain free possession of the land for development.
Issue 3: Computation of short-term capital gains on the sale of 2.96 acres of land
The assessee had agreements to purchase 2.96 acres of land but transferred the right to purchase to M/s. MPC, who paid Rs. 9.79 crores directly to the landowners. The Assessing Officer included this amount in the assessee's total consideration but did not allow the corresponding acquisition cost. The Tribunal found this approach unjust and upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)'s decision to exclude the Rs. 9.79 crores from the assessee's total consideration or allow it as a deduction.
Issue 4: Treatment of retention money
The Assessing Officer added Rs. 2,18,96,985/- shown as 'Other Liabilities' in the assessee's balance sheet, considering it a contingent liability. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that retention money is a usual practice in contracts and represents an actual liability, not a contingent one. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) rightly deleted this addition.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)'s comprehensive order, finding it just and fair. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
-
2013 (3) TMI 851
Issues involved: Appeal against order of CIT(A) regarding disallowance of bad debts for assessment year 2004-05.
Grounds of appeal: 1. Challenge to CIT(A)'s order. 2. Disallowance of bad debts. 3. Alternate plea for deduction u/s. 28.
Facts: Assessee is a limited company engaged in leasing, hire purchase, and other activities. AO disallowed principal portion of bad debt in scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3). CIT(A) upheld AO's decision.
Arguments: Assessee relied on judgments of Bombay High Court and Co-ordinate Bench. Revenue supported lower authorities' orders.
Decision: Tribunal found disallowance based on interest portion only was incorrect. Citing Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court judgments, Tribunal allowed deduction for bad debts as interest income was part of debt and offered to tax. Disallowed part of bad debt was deleted. Assessee's appeal was allowed.
Conclusion: Disallowance of bad debts was reversed by the Tribunal based on the treatment of interest income as part of debt. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.
-
2013 (3) TMI 850
Issues involved: Validity of notice served via E-mail u/s Rule 64 of Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005.
Summary:
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh considered the matter where a notice seeking recovery of tax arrears for the year 2008-09 under A.P. Central Sales Tax Act was served on the petitioner via E-mail, contrary to Rule 64 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. The petitioner challenged the notice on this ground.
Upon examination of Rule 64(1)(b) of the Rules, the Court acknowledged that the notice should have been personally served on the nominated person, left at the registered office, or sent by registered post. The Court concluded that serving the assessment order via E-mail to the petitioner indeed violated the statutory rules.
Consequently, the Court set aside the notice dated 29.01.2013 and disposed of the Writ Petition, allowing the respondent to serve the assessment order in compliance with the statutory rules. No costs were awarded, and any pending Miscellaneous Petitions in this writ petition were closed accordingly.
-
2013 (3) TMI 849
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves a miscellaneous application filed by the assessee requesting the recall of an order by the Tribunal for fresh adjudication based on apparent mistakes regarding the accumulation of income u/s 11(1) and setting off of expenses for assessment year 2001-02.
Issue 1: Accumulation of Income and Setting Off of Expenses
The assessee had incurred expenditure exceeding the gross income for assessment year 2001-02. The AO disallowed the claim of accumulating 25% of gross income before setting off expenses, leading to the appeal. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Programme for Community Organisation and other High Court judgments. The Tribunal, however, distinguished these judgments and upheld the lower authorities' decision. The AR pointed out the Tribunal's failure to consider its own decision in the assessee's case for assessment year 2005-06, where a similar claim was allowed. Upon review, it was found that the Tribunal had indeed not considered its decision for the assessment year 2005-06, which supported the assessee's claim. The Tribunal had allowed accumulation of 25% before setting off expenses in previous years as well. Consequently, the order was recalled for fresh adjudication after considering the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application of the assessee, recalling the order for fresh adjudication based on the non-consideration of the Tribunal's previous decision in the assessee's case.
-
2013 (3) TMI 848
The Bombay High Court corrected a typographical error in a previous order related to Section 271(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The office was directed to modify the order accordingly. The matter was disposed of.
-
2013 (3) TMI 847
Issues involved: Interpretation of tax law regarding the assessment of income from sales revenue of advertisement by the Tribunal for assessment years 2000-01 and 2002-03.
Summary:
Issue 1: Assessment of income from sales revenue of advertisement
The High Court considered the common question of law proposed for their consideration, which revolved around whether the assessee was a conduit of Star Limited and if the income from sales revenue of advertisement belonged to the assessee for assessment years 2000-01 and 2002-03. The Tribunal had previously allowed the claim of the respondent-assessee based on its earlier orders for the assessment year 1998-99. The Revenue did not challenge the order for 1998-99, and the Tribunal found no grounds to deviate from its previous decision. The Tribunal reaffirmed that the assessee company was established not solely for obtaining advertisements from India but also from other countries, indicating a genuine commercial purpose beyond tax benefits. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the independent existence of the respondent-assessee was valid and dismissed the appeals by the Revenue for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2002-03, citing consistency with the previous decision for 1998-99.
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the lack of grounds for challenging the assessment of income from sales revenue of advertisement by the respondent-assessee for the relevant assessment years.
-
2013 (3) TMI 846
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Competent Authority under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
2. High Court's exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Summary:
1. Jurisdiction of the Competent Authority under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999:
The respondent filed a suit for a declaration of tenancy and nullification of a leave and licence agreement. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant filed an application u/s 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, seeking vacant possession of the suit premises. The Competent Authority dismissed the respondent's application for framing a preliminary issue on jurisdiction, stating that the relationship between the parties and the purpose of the premises required evidence. The Competent Authority emphasized that all issues should be tried together to avoid protracted litigation.
2. High Court's exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution:
The respondent challenged the Competent Authority's order in a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court, treating the petition under Article 227, held that the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction as the premises were not exclusively for residential purposes, as required by Section 24 of the Act. The High Court concluded that the application should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Supreme Court's Decision:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, emphasizing the limitations of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227. The Court referred to principles from previous judgments, highlighting that supervisory jurisdiction is to keep subordinate courts within their jurisdiction and not to correct mere errors of fact or law. The Supreme Court held that the Competent Authority's decision not to frame a preliminary issue was consistent with the objective of expeditious disposal of cases. The High Court's interference was deemed unjustified, and the Competent Authority was directed to dispose of the matter within one year without expressing any opinion on the merits of the application or the jurisdiction issue.
-
2013 (3) TMI 845
The Bombay High Court considered the denial of a deduction claimed under section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act for income from an industrial park. The court admitted the case based on substantial questions of law regarding the denial of deduction, reliance on specific rules and conditions, and the effective date of the notification by the Central Board of Direct Taxes for the industrial park.
-
2013 (3) TMI 844
Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement u/s 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Illegal increase in authorized capital.
3. Mismanagement and siphoning of funds.
4. Fabrication and manipulation of Board meeting minutes.
5. Unauthorized leasing of land and allotment of shares.
6. Collusion with banks and illegal loans.
7. Denial of access to company records and exclusion from management.
8. Appointment of Special Officer-cum-Observer and auditors.
Summary:
1. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement u/s 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956:
The petitioner alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement by the Chiripal group in the affairs of Vraj Integrated Textile Park Ltd. ("R-1-company") and sought ad-interim injunctions.
2. Illegal increase in authorized capital:
The petitioner claimed that the authorized capital of the R-1-company was illegally increased from Rs. 5 crore to Rs. 6 crore and further to Rs. 37 crore without proper Board meetings or notices, with the intent to reduce the petitioner's shareholding.
3. Mismanagement and siphoning of funds:
The petitioner accused the Chiripal group of siphoning off grants from the Ministry of Textiles (Rs. 36 crore) and loans from IDBI (Rs. 19.70 crore) and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Rs. 16.30 crore) by leasing lands to Chiripal group companies at throwaway prices, resulting in a loss of Rs. 29,98,98,512 to the R-1-company.
4. Fabrication and manipulation of Board meeting minutes:
Discrepancies were pointed out in the minutes of Board meetings, with allegations of manipulation and fabrication, such as the addition of agenda items later and post-dated postal receipts for meeting notices.
5. Unauthorized leasing of land and allotment of shares:
The petitioner argued that leases of land to Chiripal group companies were done without proper Board resolutions, and shares were allotted without Board meetings or proper consideration, with white fluid applied to the share transfer register to change folio numbers.
6. Collusion with banks and illegal loans:
The petitioner alleged that the creation of mortgages and granting of term loans by IDBI and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur were illegal and done in collusion with the Chiripal group, without proper Board meetings or authority.
7. Denial of access to company records and exclusion from management:
The petitioner claimed that he was denied access to the Textile Park premises, minutes books, and financial records, and was ousted from the management after setting up the Textile Park.
8. Appointment of Special Officer-cum-Observer and auditors:
The court appointed Shri Hari Sankar Acharya as Special Officer-cum-Observer to oversee the affairs of the R-1-company, Rawla & Co. as auditors to prepare cash flow statements and verify utilization of funds, and Hitesh Buch & Associates as company secretaries to verify statutory records and compliance with the Companies Act. The court granted the petitioner liberty to amend the company petition to incorporate subsequent events.
-
2013 (3) TMI 843
Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction exercised by CIT u/s 263. 2. Deduction u/s 80-O. 3. Deduction u/s 80HHC. 4. Inclusion of excise duty and sales tax in total turnover. Summary:Issue 1: Jurisdiction exercised by CIT u/s 263The assessee contended that the jurisdiction exercised by CIT u/s 263 was wrongly exercised and should be quashed. The CIT noted that the assessee claimed deductions u/s 80-O and 80HHC incorrectly, leading to erroneous and prejudicial assessments. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's jurisdiction u/s 263, stating that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest due to lack of proper inquiry by the A.O. Issue 2: Deduction u/s 80-OThe CIT objected to the deduction u/s 80-O, arguing that the consideration must be for use, not sale, of technical know-how outside India. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to establish that the technical know-how was exclusively used outside India. Thus, the CIT's exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 was upheld. The Tribunal also noted that the sale agreement did not restrict the buyer from using the technical know-how in India, making the deduction u/s 80-O inapplicable. Issue 3: Deduction u/s 80HHCThe CIT objected to the exclusion of excise duty and sales tax from the total turnover for deduction u/s 80HHC. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in Laxmi Machines, held that excise duty and sales tax should not be included in the total turnover for computing deduction u/s 80HHC. Thus, the CIT's objection on this point was invalid, but the overall order u/s 263 was upheld due to the erroneous deduction u/s 80-O. Issue 4: Inclusion of excise duty and sales tax in total turnoverThe revenue's appeal argued that excise duty and sales tax should be included in the total turnover for deduction u/s 80HHC. The Tribunal rejected this, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Laxmi Machines. However, the Tribunal remanded the issue of deduction u/s 80-O back to the CIT(A) for fresh decision, allowing the assessee to provide evidence that the technical know-how could not be used in India. Conclusion:The assessee's appeal and cross-objection were dismissed. The revenue's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter of deduction u/s 80-O remanded for further examination.
-
2013 (3) TMI 842
Issues involved: Appeal against levy of penalty u/s 271B for assessment year 2008-09.
Summary:
The taxpayer, a civil contractor, appealed against the penalty imposed for not maintaining books of account and not auditing them. The taxpayer argued that since no books of account were prescribed for civil contractors by the CBDT, they should not be penalized for not maintaining them. The CIT(A) had previously deleted the penalty u/s 271A for not maintaining books of account. The taxpayer's representative cited judgments from the Karnataka High Court and various Tribunal benches to support their case.
The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that since the taxpayer's receipts exceeded the limits u/s 44AB, they were required to obtain an audit report, regardless of whether books of account were maintained.
The Tribunal examined the provisions of section 44AA, which mandate maintaining books of account for businesses exceeding specified income thresholds. It noted an omission in Rule 6F of the Income-tax Rules regarding the prescription of books of account for civil contractors. The Tribunal opined that this was an unintended oversight by the executive authorities, as the legislature expected even civil contractors to maintain books of account.
Citing precedents, the Tribunal found that penalties for not maintaining books of account were unjustified when such books were not prescribed. It emphasized that the omission in Rule 6F could be rectified by the department notifying the CBDT.
Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and deleted the penalty u/s 271B, ruling in favor of the taxpayer.
The appeal of the taxpayer was allowed, and the penalty was revoked.
-
2013 (3) TMI 841
Issues involved: Disallowance of deduction u/s.80IB(11A) for handling, storage, and transportation of food grains.
Issue 1: Disallowance of deduction u/s.80IB(11A)
The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition of &8377; 2,47,639/- by disallowing deduction u/s.80IB(11A) on the grounds that the assessee was not involved in the integrated business of handling, storage, and transportation of food grains. The Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee at &8377; 6,29,888/- by making various additions, including disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80IB(11A) for warehousing business. The main contention was that the assessee did not own any trucks for transportation, which led to the disallowance. The Assessing Officer relied on a report from a Ward Inspector, stating that the assessee did not provide transportation facilities to customers. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee was engaged in handling, storage, and some part of transportation of food grains, which should not disqualify them from claiming the deduction u/s.80IB(11A). The Tribunal emphasized that transportation could be through hired vehicles and that the beneficial provisions should be liberally interpreted in favor of the assessee. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision based on these considerations.
Conclusion: The appeal by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2013 (3) TMI 840
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal for assessment year 2007-08 regarding deduction under Section 10B without setting off unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business losses. The issue was already decided in favor of the assessee for the previous assessment year 2006-07. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.
-
2013 (3) TMI 839
Issues involved: Appeal against order for assessment year 2007-08 regarding deduction u/s 24 of the Income Tax Act and computation of income for a charitable trust.
Issue 1: Deduction u/s 24 of the Income Tax Act
The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee trust out of rental income, stating that the income of the trust should be computed in a commercial sense without applying the provisions of chapter IV of the Income Tax Act. The AO referred to a Board Circular and denied the claim of deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act. The assessee argued that as per section 24(a), every assessee can claim a standard deduction of 30% of the gross annual value while computing income from house property. The CIT(A) held that the AO was not justified in disallowing the deduction, as section 24 allows a deduction of 30% of rental income after considering a CBDT circular. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that there is no provision in the Income Tax Act that restricts the availability of deduction u/s 24 for property held for charitable purposes.
Issue 2: Computation of income for a charitable trust
The Assessing Officer questioned the deduction claimed by the assessee trust and insisted on computing the income in a commercial sense without applying the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The AO denied the deduction u/s 24(a) and referred to a Board Circular. The CIT(A) held that the AO was not justified in disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee out of rental income, as section 24 allows a deduction of 30% of rental income. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) and upheld the decision, emphasizing that the provisions of Chapter IV-C of the Income Tax Act permit the deduction u/s 24 @ 30% for income from house property.
The appeal filed by the department and the cross objection filed by the assessee were both dismissed by the Tribunal, affirming the decision of the CIT(A) to allow the deduction u/s 24 for the charitable trust.
-
2013 (3) TMI 838
Issues involved: The judgment addresses various substantial questions of law related to the allowance of expenditures incurred for Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCB), bank charges, administrative fees, development expenses, disallowance of premium, provision for pending labor demand, and disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) and u/s 35(2AB).
Expenditure for FCCB: The Tribunal's decision to allow the expenditure incurred for FCCB, including bank charges and administrative fees, was questioned. The issue was whether such expenses should be considered allowable under the circumstances and in accordance with the law.
Bank charges for consortuum loan: The Tribunal's decision to allow bank charges paid to the lead manager for taking a consortuum loan was challenged. The question was whether such charges constitute allowable expenditure.
Development expenses for Euro IV Compliant Engine: The Tribunal's decision to allow the expenditure incurred for the development of Euro IV Compliant Engine, despite its enduring nature and requirement for capitalization, was disputed. The issue was whether the benefit derived should be capitalized instead of treated as revenue expenditure.
Development expenses for new range of tractors: The Tribunal's decision to treat expenses incurred on the development of a new range of tractors as revenue in nature, despite the enduring benefit requiring capitalization, was contested. The issue was whether such expenses should be capitalized.
Disallowance of premium on redemption of FCCB: The Tribunal's deletion of the disallowance of pro rata premium payable on the redemption of FCCB was challenged. The question was whether such expenses, related to fully convertible bonds into equity shares, should be treated as capital expenditure.
Provision for pending labor demand: The Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction in respect of the provision for pending labor demand was questioned. The issue was whether such deduction was justified under the facts and circumstances of the case and in accordance with the law.
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia): The Tribunal's setting aside of the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) was disputed. The issue was whether the Tribunal erred in relying on certain decisions that were deemed irrelevant to the issue under consideration, particularly in light of Explanation (iv) to Section 194H.
Weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB): The Tribunal's direction to allow weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) for the Nashik Unit and Kandivli unit, despite certain mandatory conditions not being fulfilled, was challenged. The issue was whether such deductions should be allowed without meeting the prescribed requirements.
-
2013 (3) TMI 837
Issues involved: Condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Summary:
In Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2012, the High Court of Jharkhand considered the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeals before CESTAT. The Court noted that the CESTAT had dismissed the application for condonation of delay, finding the grounds unsatisfactory. The appellant had argued that a related appeal by the Revenue was pending, and the appellant had also filed a cross-objection in that appeal. The Court observed that since the matter was sub judice before the appellate authority, including the cross-objection, it would be appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders passed by CESTAT and allowed the applications for condonation of delay, directing the Appellate Court to proceed. Additionally, the stay petitions filed in both appeals were disposed of.
This judgment highlights the importance of providing valid grounds for condonation of delay in filing appeals before tribunals, and the significance of related proceedings in determining the outcome of such applications. The decision underscores the principle of allowing parties a fair opportunity to present their case before the appellate authority, even in situations involving delays in filing appeals.
-
2013 (3) TMI 836
Issues Involved: Examination of report from VIMHANS, extent of disclosure, interim directions.
Examination of Report from VIMHANS: The High Court examined a report sent in a sealed cover by VIMHANS. The Court decided to examine the extent of disclosure of the report and requested a senior officer familiar with the case circumstances to be available in Court on the next date of hearing to assist. Serious issues arising from the report made it necessary for the Court to issue interim directions immediately.
Extent of Disclosure: The Court issued interim directions based on the report from VIMHANS. It directed that no communication addressed by the petitioner regarding any issue should be considered. Additionally, the petitioner was not to be entrusted with any work in the Department due to potential impact on the public. Alternative arrangements were to be made for the completion of appellate proceedings before the end of the financial year.
Interim Directions: The report was to be put in a sealed cover and kept in the custody of the Deputy Registrar to be presented in Court on the next date of hearing. The interim orders issued on 16.01.2013 were to continue until the next hearing date. The Court ordered the distribution of copies of the orders under the signatures of the Court Master to the respondents' counsel, UOI, and the clerk of VIMHANS.
Conclusion: The Court scheduled the next hearing for 18.03.2013 to further address the issues raised in the report from VIMHANS and the interim directions issued.
-
2013 (3) TMI 835
Issues involved: Rectification of observations in the common order related to the eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act.
Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin addressed the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee seeking rectification of observations in the common order dated 04-05-2012. The Tribunal was adjudicating the issue of the assessee's eligibility to claim deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The Tribunal referred to documents like "Aerodrome License - Public Use" and "Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on provision of facilities in the airport." It was observed that these documents did not fall under the category specified in Clause (b) of sec. 80IA(4) of the Act. The Tribunal directed the assessee to furnish the relevant agreement to the Assessing Officer. The assessee contended that there was a factual error in the observations made by the Tribunal, as they had also provided a copy of the agreement with the Airport Authority of India. However, the Tribunal did not find a copy of this agreement in the record. The Tribunal clarified that the agreement for developing or operating an infrastructural facility with the Government/Government body was essential for claiming the deduction u/s 80IA. The Tribunal added a sentence to the order, stating that the Assessing Officer should re-examine the matter after considering all materials and explanations available on record. The Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee was partly allowed, and the decision was pronounced on 28-03-2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 834
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the following issues:
1. Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction at 20% on accrual income.
2. Whether the income (royalty) of the assessee was taxable under the tax treaty between India and Federal Republic of Germany only on a receipt basis.
Issue 1: Deduction on Accrual Income
The Tribunal restored the issue for fresh adjudication to the file of the Assessing Officer. The High Court decided not to consider this question at this stage as it does not require consideration.
Issue 2: Taxability of Royalty Income
The High Court noted that a similar issue was raised by the revenue in a previous case involving the same respondent-assessee. In that case, the revenue's appeal was dismissed. Therefore, based on the previous order, the High Court decided not to entertain the question regarding the taxability of royalty income.
Conclusion:
All seven appeals by the revenue for assessment years 1986-87 to 1992-93 were dismissed by the High Court. No costs were awarded in this matter.
........
|
9911796707
