| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 1910 2014 SLD 1910 (2014) 368 ITR 577 |
Madras High Court
T. C. (A.) Nos. 2574 to 2579 of 2006, AUGUST 5, 2014
R. SUDHAKAR AND G. M. AKBAR ALI, JJ
M. Swaminathan, Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Premalatha and Ms. V. Pushpa for the Appellant. Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman Senior Counsel and Ms. J. Sree Vidya for the
Respondent
T. C. (A.) Nos. 2574 to 2579 of 2006, AUGUST 5, 2014
R. SUDHAKAR AND G. M. AKBAR ALI, JJ
M. Swaminathan, Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Premalatha and Ms. V. Pushpa for the Appellant. Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman Senior Counsel and Ms. J. Sree Vidya for the
Respondent
Commissioner of IncomE tax, Madurai
v.
Hitech Arai Ltd.
Law:
Section:
JUDGMENT R. Sudhakar, J - These appeals are filed by the Revenue assailing the order dated 21.10.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.Nos.289(Mds)/2001, 1565(Mds)/2003, 1869(Mds)/2003, 2069(Mds)/2003, 3312(Mds)/2004 and 3313(Mds)/2004 for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1997-98 to 2001-02, by raising the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount paid by the assessee to the foreign company pursuant to the collaboration agreement dated 8.12.1993 is in the nature of royalty, and not fee for technical know how? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the 5% of the sale proceeds of the product paid by the assessee to the foreign company pursuant to the collaboration agreement dated 8.12.1993 is in the nature of royalty and not fee for technical know how? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 35AB read with Explanation 2 to Section 9 vii can be invoked? (iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts paid by the assessee to the foreign company pursuant to the collaboration agreement dated 8.12.1993 is allowable as revenue expenditure and not to be treated as capital expenditure? (v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that excise duty and sales tax collection should be excluded from the total turnover for the purpose of calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC? And (vi) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income from wind mill should be excluded from the turnover for computation of deduction under Section 80HHC? " 2.1 At the outset, we notice that substantial question of law (v), namely, "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that excise duty and sales tax collection should be excluded from the total turnover for the purpose of calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC?", is squarely covered by a…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492