TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order dt. 01-11-2010 of the CIT(A)- XVIII, New Delhi. Following Grounds of Appeal have been raised by the Assessing Officer (AO). 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled for eligible deduction u/s.35ABB amounting to ₹ 33,55,51,000/- on account of variable license fees u/s.35ABB as against ₹ 7,18,89,545/- as allowed by the Assessing Officer . 2. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary. 2. Assessee-company, engaged in the business of provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e further relied upon the cases of Bharti Cellular Limited (ITA No.5335/Del/2003AY 2000-01dt. 29-05-2009); Bharti Airtel Limited [41 SOT 175 (MUM)] and Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd [38 SOT 51 (Ahd.)]. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material put before us. We find that in assessee s own case for the AY 2001-02, the issue was decided in its favour. The issue of variable license fee paid; to Department of Telecommunication in accordance with the new revenue sharing retime ;was decided in that case by the said order in following words: The issue raised is that ld. Commissioner of income Tax(A) has erred in upholding an addition of ₹ 26,92,54,013/- (Rs.22,84,86,443 - 1,92,32,340/- i.e. 1/5th of 28,84,86,443/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Bombay Bench of this Tribunal has held as follows:- 8 . Revocation of licences - the Central Government may, at any time revoke any licence granted u/s 4, on the breach of any of the conditions therein contained, or in default of payment of any consideration payable thereunder. From perusal of 5.8 of that Act, it is now evident that under the circumstances the licence is revoked, the appellant shall not be able to carry on its business of telephone services, unless it had paid such a licence fee to the Government. The irresistible conclusion, therefore, would be that payment of licence fee is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the business carried on by it. The same is, therefore, an allowable deduction u/s. 37 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
