Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 800 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2015 (11) TMI 800 - DELHI HIGH COURT - TMI - Franchise fee - whether the assessee/respondent was only receiving USD 22,500 from the Joint Venture Companies and not USD 45,000, as contended by the Revenue? - Held that:- The finding is that the assessee has received only USD 22,500 and not USD 45,000 during the period in question. Apart from this, it is also noted in paragraph 7 of the impugned order that assessee could not remit even this amount of USD 22,500 to the parent Company because of an e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

adar Durrez Ahmed And Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Rahul Chaudhary with Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr Pawan Kumar, Advocate JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J ( Oral ) 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 18.03.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.960/DEL/2010 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2003-04. The issue sought to be raised by the Revenue is with regard to the franchise fee. The learned counsel fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as reduced to USD 22,500 while, at the same time, it was remitting USD 45,000 to the parent Company. This, according to him, meant that the assessee was depressing its income by showing an expenditure of USD 45,000 as against its income USD 22,500 in respect of each franchisee. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent is present on advance notice. He has pointed out that in the year in the question, no remittances were made to the parent Company because there was an embargo placed by the Govern .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Assessing Officer. We note that the Tribunal which is the final fact finding authority in the hierarchy of authorities under the Income Tax Act has returned a clear finding as under:- 7.2 All these agreements read with correspondence clearly show that assessee was entitled to USD 22,500 and not USD 45,000 during FY 2002-03. Ld. Standing Counsel has submitted that there could not be any unilateral amendment to the Franchisee agreement. However, contents of letter dated 8-12-2002, reproduced ab .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version