TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound to be on principal to principal basis and, therefore, not hit by Section 194H of the Act. The impugned order, therefore allowed the Respondent-Assessee's appeal. The issue now stands concluded against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT v/s. Intervet India P. Ltd. [2014 (4) TMI 353 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. Appeal admitted on Questions at (a), (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) as substantial questions of law. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1148 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2017 - M. S. Sanklecha, And A. K. Menon, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Suresh Kumar For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjiv M. Shah ORDER P.C: This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valent domestic rate interest payable on working capital loans which govern the lending and borrowing market in India? (d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in deleting the pro rata premium of ₹ 42.78 crores payable on redemption of Foreign Currency Convertible (FCCB), which are fully convertible into equity shares of the company and therefore such expenses are to be treated as capital expenditure? (e) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the dealer's incentive is not covered by Sec. 194H as the sale is made on principal-to-principal basis, ignoring the fact that the relationship between t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act as the sale between the Respondent-Assessee and its dealer was on principal to principal basis. The impugned order of the Tribunal place reliance upon its earlier order dated 8th June, 2012 for the Assessment Year 200708 wherein on detailed examination of the relationship between the Respondent-Assessee and its dealers was found to be on principal to principal basis and, therefore, not hit by Section 194H of the Act. The impugned order, therefore allowed the Respondent-Assessee's appeal. (b) Mr. Suresh Kumar, fairly points out that although the Appellant had filed an appeal to this Court being Income Tax Appeal No.875 of 2013 from the order dated 8th June, 2012 for Assessment Year 200708, no appeal on this issue was filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
