9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produce the grounds from ITA No-2691/Del/2012:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in deleting the addition made by the AO, disregarding the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v Ch. Atchaiah (218 ITR 239) that the right entity should be taxed at the right place. 2. The grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify the grounds of appeal at my time." 2. Right at the outset it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the point at issue is fully covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of the order dated 22.03.2013 in ITA No-1611-1613 and 1654-1656/Del/2010 for 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 assessment years. Copy of the said order was placed before the Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the said decision for 2004-05, 2005-06 assessment years has been dismissed by the Apex Court. Pointing to page 35 of the impugned order it was submitted that the appeal for 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 assessment years on the similar grounds had been allowed in favour of the assessee vide order dated 22.02.2012; 23.02.2012 & 24.02.2012 and it is this order which has been upheld by the ITAT as such the point at issue is covered in assessee's favour. Qua the other appeal it was submitted that facts and circumstances are identical except the difference in amounts as 5% of the total contractual receipts works out to Rs. 4,61,56,661/-. 3. In the light of the above stand of the assessee in response to the Ld. Sr. DR's assertion that the issue i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, with all due respect to the said decision, the issue in contention presently is "whether the right person should not be taxed at the right place?", which issue was not before the Hon'ble ITAT in the citation quoted by the assessee (supra). The issue being argued here is that at the time of entering into sub-contract, the assessee JV should have kept a certain percentage of the total receipts, say @1%, to itself as profits and then given the sub-contract, as is the normal practice being followed in the business activity that the assessee JV is in." (Emphasis provided by the Bench) 3.2. Considering the arguments of the Sr. DR, attention was invited to the ground raised by the Revenue in ITA No.1611 to 1613, 1654 to 1656/Del/2010 wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer without commenting on the precedents relied upon by Ld. CIT(A). 4. After hearing both the sides and considering the material on record, we find that the issue raised in these appeal have been decided by the CIT(A) in view of jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of the assessee for assessment years 2004-05 & 05-06, wherein SLP filed by the department has also been dismissed, which too was considered by the CIT(A). Since issue is settled in favour of the assessee, therefore, appeals of the Revenue are not tenable which are dismissed while upholding the order of the CIT(A). 5. As a result, all the appeals filed by the department are dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 3.4. Considering the same, the Sr. DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
