Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (12) TMI 211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e merits might have been decided erroneously and the ITAT had jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an order recalling its earlier order which is an erroneous order, cannot be accepted. As observed hereinabove, if the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous on merits, in that case, the remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer an appeal before the High Court, which in fact was filed by the Assessee before the High Court, but later on the Assessee withdrew the same in the instant case. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7110 OF 2021 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7111 OF 2021 - - - Dated:- 3-12-2021 - M.R. SHAH And B.V. NAGARATHNA , JJ. FOR THE PETITIONER : RAJ BAHADUR YADAV JUDGMENT M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of software without TDS. It was contended by the Assessee that it was for the purchase of software and Ericsson A.B. had no permanent establishment in India and in terms of the DTAA between India and Sweden USA, the amount paid is not taxable in India. 2.2 The Assessing Officer passed an order dated 12.03.2007 rejecting the Assessee s application holding that the consideration for software licensing constituted under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and under Article 12(3) of the DTAA is liable to be taxed in India and accordingly directed the assessee to deduct tax at the rate of 10% as royalty. 2.3 The Assessee after deducting the tax appealed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). CIT vide order dated 27.05.2008 held in fav .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eneral of India appearing on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Anuj Berry, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Resolution Professional of the respondent-company. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the respondent-company/companies respective assessees currently are undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process and the Resolution Professional is appointed. We have heard learned counsel for the Resolution Professional of the respondentassessee. 3.1 We have considered the order dated 18.11.2016 passed by the ITAT allowing the miscellaneous application in exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act and recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013 as well as the original order passed by the ITAT dated 06.09.2013. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ts or in law, in that case, the only remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer the appeal before the High Court, which as such was already filed by the Assessee before the High Court, which the Assessee withdrew after the order passed by the ITAT dated 18.11.2016 recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013. Therefore, as such, the order passed by the ITAT recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013 which has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act is beyond the scope and ambit of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal conferred under Section 254 (2) of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the ITAT dated 18.11.2016 recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013 is unsustainable, which ought to have been set as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be accepted. As observed hereinabove, if the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous on merits, in that case, the remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer an appeal before the High Court, which in fact was filed by the Assessee before the High Court, but later on the Assessee withdrew the same in the instant case. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the common order passed by the ITAT dated 18.11.2016 recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013 deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside. The original orders passed by the ITAT dated 06.09.2013 passed in the respective appeals preferred by the Revenue ar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates