Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Bovis Lend Lease (India) P Ltd on 16 March, 2012
Bench: N.Kumar, Ravi Malimath
IGH couR'r or KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH coum or KARNATAKA HIGH cousrr or KARNATAKA HIGH courrr or KARNATAKA men con
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED T1'-IIS THE 1619:: DAY 0:? MARCH
PRESENT
TI-IE HOFBLE MR. JUSIIQE R. %
THE HOWBLE MR. auémczkkavz
;%mo;e
£010
A coumssxomzop INCOME TAX,
IHTERNA'PIO:iAI_Q'TA}(A'I'IOR, no. 14/ 3,
RASI-rI'R<m_IA.NA «B51-IAVAfi,
ImftJPA"II+IUI¢GA ROAD,
001.
.% mmm TAX OFFICER.
, m'rrsRH2=aTIoNAL mxanou, warm 19 (1),
A m:>;:4;%3, RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN,
NRUPATHLINGA ROAD,
'B{sRGALORE - 560 001.
APPELLANTS
COMMON
(BY% sm. MOHAN PARASARAR, ASG WITH
D.C.CHIDANANDA FOR SR1 M.V. SESHACHALA AND
kk " M K.v. ARAVIND, ADVOCATES).
'X,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGI-"l_C()g;'JRT OF KARNATAKA HIGHVCOURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAK15. "HIGH C
@
M] 3. BOVIS LEHD LEASE (mum) PVT. LTD,
30.41, 3:0 mm, macs LAYOU'1',2"'-'3 SPAGEx,M__": E K
NAGASHETIYHALLI, SANJAY NAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 094.
BYITSMANAGING DIRECTOR f
/. 'coz~moEDVE«E
(BY SR1.
THESE rms. ARE P'fi.ED'U_HDER EEEDDN 260-A
OF INCOME TAX Ac:'r;.19t31 ARISING OUT OF ORDER
DATED 23.08.2009, E012 AEEEEEMEET YEARS
2003-04 IN ma HO.6.36IBANC§l2fliO8;'V_'v2&X)5--06 IN rm
No.53?/EANG/2008; ; m rm
NO.665/BAIjiG,{:jj2£X38:. 1N ma
No.1452/EEEAEG;.2ma;EDE%E' EEDD2003~o4 IN rm
RO.676IB»?§NC§;'_120Cfi;._V D m rm
N0.677iEBAP~¥G['2:£)O3--;. IN rm
No.6%78/BANc3IE2ooe.;%*»E E004-05 » IN rm
NO.679/'BANGi~?i003.RESPECTNELY '10 FORMULATE
TI-IE "QUES'HOHS or yaw STATED
'I'HEREIN'=A3€D ALLOW THE APPEALS AND SET
ASEDE, "DRDER PASSED BY THE rrxr,
Dam. NOu.635, 537, 676 TO 579, 665,
. 14.5i2lBANGI20O8 RESPECTNELY DATED
=28;O8;:3009.__ixND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY
E H!CDME"'TAXEOFFICER(k1t1. Taxn.,) WARD--19(1),
.
mmyucacmamz to 9:11 In 'D 'Arr one to 2212010:
...;_..'. .:._*I. 1.1.". .T_.:_',.'..-_ . D Ems. BOVIS LEND LEASE (INIDA) pvr. LTD., No.41, 329 mm, AECS LAYOUT, 2% STAGE, NAGASHETIYHALLI, SANJAY NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 094. L/ [CH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH' COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGHACOL NO.655:.,¢BANG/2008; 2004-05 A A3 ~RQ.14-SQIBANGI 2003; 2003-04 A vR_O';_576/BANGIZOOB; 2004435 '*NO'.67'7/BANGI2008; 200+-05 " NO.679/BANGIQOOS RESPECTIVELY '10 FORMULATE BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR « ...CROSS OBJECPOR COMMON, (BY 3121. CHY"1'HANYA.K.K, ADVC)CA'I'E) £2
1. THE comvassxomzzx or IHCOlhfl?_. '1'A3{,.
IHTERNKPIOHAL TAXATIOR, N*;').1;4/'03_, 0' RAsH'I'R<:rrHANA BHAVAH, * HRUPATHUNGA BAHGALORE - 560 001.0.
2. THE INCOME OFFICER, _ IR'I'ERNA'I'IOHAL"TAXA'_I'E3II, 19 (1), No.14] 3, B*HA'JTA.H--~, NRIIPATI-{UNGA:'ROA£), A A BANGALOE§I:?.- 50o:001.° _ RESPONDENTS " ' COMMON (BY { ?&.9._&.'.--§.ARAH. ASG WITH D.c.0HIDAI€ANDA% we SR: M.v. SESHACHALA AND K-v. Anavlm "!.I-IE§E-»VIfI'PLCI;'}.'Oés ARE FILED UNDER SECTION RESPECTIVELY or meow TAX 0 ACT, 19613/W ORDER ORDER XLI RULE 22 AND XLII =Ru1s 1A0F0QP0 1908. ARISING om' OF ORDER DATED A2a.0s;2cx:0,A0%0'aoR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003.04 13' FPA"AA'I1¥«i").686/BANGIQOOB; 200505 In rm 190.6307/BANG/2008; 2o04~o0 ITA ITA rm rm ITA ITA EEEEEE }NO.678/ BANG! 2008; 2004-05 THE SUBS'I'ARTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND TO ALLOW THE CROSS OBJECTIONS \/ '-IIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGI-I,€.'O_;URT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF.KIARNA'I'AKAI HIGH C FILED AGAINST CERTAIN FINDINGS MADE BY THE HAT, BANGALORE BENCH IN ITA NOe.636, 637--,.,_676 To 679, 665, 14S2IBAKG/2008 RESPEC:TI'.sIE-.LY mmn 28.08.2009.
THESE rm; AHD rm. cRoEs.
FINAL DISPOSAL THIS mar, In. J, * DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-'~,& A. 'Phase appeals between the same parties and are one and the aamua. 'taken« .. for oonsidczration Wm cm man. order.
: ' E Private Limited Company canying" of projoct and construction the assesses entered into a I aexviaas agreement (herein afier referred to I sflort) with we Lend Lease Ania Holdings Singapare (herein after referred to as The purpose of the t was to get the of LIA!-I'a at its associates' arpert1se' am in management service, admiziistrative x/ IGH cou RT or KARNATAKAHIGH COURT or-' KARNATAKA HIGH' COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH "Cot fix services, peraonnal services, legal services, financial services, xmzrkuting services, business services, informaticn technology ae:vk:e§.. E firi' knowledge and wpertise assocza' tea' dumg its operatiofi' :¢f+.:'sm~flar'A'II'I:"
wot-1d--wIde' . In --:4IIl'V..§A*:i"
agreement, the like admizfntration, gm: accounting Inrorméwon' mm-..
treasury technology tn the MSA, the LLAH after submit a statement of '"-'-1""°=$ as and the chain: has m be from the time the invoice. is I-aiaed invoices and submitted them to the 'me claim has been admitted and ax:cord1ng' ly, A "G were debited as expenditure' for the relevant yam under the head 'Regional Over Head Clmrga Account' and corresponding amounts were V HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH..CO_;URT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNAIAKA rm.-an k credited to thc 'Outatanditg Expenses Account'. The debit entries have reduced the inconxe of the for the relavant assessment years. Aftnr _ credit entries, no tax at the rate 2 by the assesses under Tax, 1961 [hereinafter >
3. The LLAH':4f'r.l_ed afloat in term; of 197 of the copies of for payment by the has imued oertificahes aut}xov':?i2:i;igVthe_.§'v%itt1out deduction of tax. It is up: the issuance of the said aa§§ea.§ee made payments as agaimt each % " any daducno' m.
" V The Authority issfied a notice under Section A "ii callixg upon the assesses to show cause as to why . slmuld not be tz-abad as an assesses in default under Section 201(1) and also why interest should not {\/ IGH COURT or KARNATAKAHIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or-' KARNATAKA HIGH courrr OF KARNATAKA HIGH courrr or KARNATAKA HIGH cot be Ievsed undat Section 201 (IA) as the emaaam. has not deducted tax as requ'n~ad under Sectfnn the Act at the time of making a credit of the notice, the assesses 'V substance, the defence of cred1t' to the outstam.'hng' E#"a.Ct.:3j regarded as credit to A as the income has No tax can be charged no tax can be:
that due azfl payable.
The entry is no eviience of any due a.11d payable to a non- tn Section 195 (1) 'm not in no intention ta esmpe tax crediting the income to some other The credit of the sums payable to LLAH was 7 afier obtaimm mg certificate for non-deduction ' __'i::f tax. The assmsizlg authority on consideration of all the relevant material held that the intention of the II/ HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGHCQURT OFVKARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH coum" or KARNATAKA HIGH courrr or KARNATAKA Htcnc anseasee was to get the benefit of LLAI-I or its associates' adminbtrativc services etc., am the pend' for such serv:ow' . The g:
charactcrization of of little moment, am the % of the tramaction to the covenants of the: contract am % clmrly mtabiiah the fact that on the payfits '3 fin-
% services rendered by LLAH to the these amounts cannot be called an of expeznam. The reimbursement of V is alao'subject 113 tax deduction A "ii provisions of Section 195 of thy: Act. The use of " nmu reimbursement will be determinative on the queation of payments. He also further held the services V * ITC-I-H couR*r or KARNATAKAHIGH CQURT or KARNATAKA HIGH' couar or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH cook? or KARNATAKA HIGH Cot whaich were rendered by LLAH involved training which wouki clmrly 'make amzzame technical axpertise, skill, know how' for purposes of and hence, they fall intn the 12;:-' Teohrfical Services}. The neclmology avm1a' ofthe MOU. maerorg, fall into the category of ard the:-efiare, proceeded to and mum Aggr2ved' preferred an appeal to Tax (App-cab).
5; Aft} ' oftheentire maberml' on Comxzfmaionaer foum no to wxth' the order passed by the 'A ' T A' 6. Agrieved by thus said order the assmsee °£31'!'ed an appml tn the Income tax appellant Tribunal. 'rm Tribunal new that the assessing authority V HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGHCQURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH comm' or KARNATAKA HIGH cousrr or-* KARNATAKA main 1!} who has completed the assessment has held that no tax was required to be deducted under section Act. Even no tramfer pricixg adjusmmm _ % attached w1thV ' the return ' of costs. fl does not know what revenue was " such order became years 2CD5-
--'I*he_ has not invoiced its J;:'1m'fere: with the said order justifiecl in raiaixg the demand 201 of the Act. The Tribunal aka mm Imus been issued. under Section 197 (1).
has acted on the basis of the oertificatm A ":1? did not dcduct any tax under Section 197 (2) while ' ' paymnt. It is not open to the authonnaas' ' to tr:-sat the assaeaec as the assesses in default in the thee M/L IIGH court or KARNATAKAHIGH cg:-um or KARNATAKA HIGH coum or KARNATAKA HIGH couR'r or-* KARNATAKA HIGH courrr or KARNATAKA Hicn cd 11 of those certificatm. However, the Tribunal has coxfiz-med the of the lower authori1:ies,_4 the contention oftbe assesses that no to be deducted on the ground " » re1m' bursemeant of the that LLAH has prov1ded' mg ._ va' n:r'o' 1 ' and as per the am! trailuilg no the The word provider 'inf not refer to the sexviom. Therefore, the skill and expense of the the authorities below were «that the said consideration paid by
- na LLAH attracts tax liability am the to have deducted the ms before payment. As the 'rn'1mm1 recorded a ' VA " ' that the assesses was mt requimd to deduct tax (fat source under Section 195 of the Act and consequently the aasaaaea cannot be treated as an "X "IIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA" HiG !-I1 12 assmseei;ndefau1t.itwas mu thatnoinwreotb leviable under Section 201 (M). 'I'herefire,
7. The revenue has V' c:1mI}eng::r1g' the findmgs' pf aaaeasee was not required at swam 195 of the liable to pay assesses in turn has these appeah by all the three available their expertise,' mg isliableho be . consideration. They are also findings of the authorities that the ainouzit by the asaessec. is mt towards A. of the expexmes.
8. The learned Additional Solicitor General asaailing the impugned order of the Tribuxml contended kg IIGI-I couI'z1"oI= KARNATAKAHIGH comm or KARNATAKA HIGH coum or KARNATAKA HIGH coutrr or KARNATAKA HIGH couwr or KARNATAAKAA HIGHco 13 thateIs'acIearfi'omSection197taxisrequiredto be deducted at the time of the accounts. The asawsing omc-er had not. certificates under section 197_(V1) assmsee was under an obHgA'tior;{"t::;' fag'. Secondly he commxied j II-mi 'I159 the asaasing moms Is «:3 regular assessment :it_: tm assessing authority no mgi be paid, even though I~.I~_e 197 (1) is not proceedings it 'n IGIII to be paii, the oertifncatze issued gm Therefixre, he submits not justified in holding that when is issued and no steps are taken to not Iiableto pay tax.
9. Per contra, it was contzendcd on behalfof the that the case ofthe assesses is that it is the consideration paid tawards rdmbursemcnt of the actual h/ HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH VCQURT or KARNATAKA HIGH courrr or KARNATAKA HIGH coum' or KARNATAKA men COURT or KARNATAKA 'man s 14 expenses. There b no element ofreal income in respect of which tax is payable. In fact, LLAH approached the aaswsing authority ffifr.-V the authoritim, the; invoices aha am what is recanted' uthu emk' MA gm 1: o£ ' than actual atpemeg 'fgr services rendered. saw, the certificate is under Sub-Sectzgafiv 2 is Bab]: to be deducted View of the matter, in defauuk-Qnd pmceeamgn could not have was justifyixg b setting proceedings on that ground.
support at' 113% cross objecticns be has that thnugh the consideration paid was fior managcrial aervims and what is paid is the cost of such services and by way of reirnburaement the techniml know how, expermc and kg nan couR1' or KARNATAKAHIGH cg-um' or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH coukr or KARNATAKA HIGH courrr or KARNATAKA HIGH co 15 skill 3 not made avaihble under the tcrma ef contract and therfire, primarily there 7: no liability at all and the authoritiw have: not the terms of the agx-e%1t a.sj;r§}1 33' = 'males avaaabw in the light arm the DTAA and s{1'bt£fim_ finditg aha requires _to be 'h
11. 11:; General V supports = to oomiclet the:
of law:
the technical' swam _ under a contract between the and its counter part abroad not liable to deducaion of tax at " some under Seaion 19.5 ofthe Act; in view of the fixdgnxent of this Harrbte Court in Jinda! Thermal Power Company .223. Dclfrand the judgment of the Apex Court in Ishikmvajma Hanlma x/ 16 Heavy Industries Limited .113. DCIT 288 1'1}? 408?
flflwhether the 2)-shun' at was ~ in ignoring thefindings 'I;<:._"I:»;-ff: ~ Private a towards same wm 9 read """ of DTAA between . IIjfi%m %%%%% the mafia" ' season 197 of the Act, would any b-eanhg as the same was ;w1sd£aio' ' n and without examt'nmg' the HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH. CQURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH courrr or: KARNATAKA HIGH COURTAOF I<ARNA'rAI<A"HII3H I fizcnsofflxe temtsand oonditians ofthe oonzmatand theprovisions oftheAct?' M/ HGH COUR '§' OF KARNATAKAHIGH CG'U§;'~.T OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO4 17 The relevant statutory provisions, which are required to be noticed are (1) 195 (2) and 197 (1) and (2).
mspon-sible fir mm cnargeable under " H .. Cf' 2 mam that the case of the §,is,e" an mm ¢PP"°P5'WiH-P"'??i?"'"5W Of SW' SW"
upon such only an that pfapbrficn sum wifidz is so OV7I_9?(1)[Subject to rules made under (where, in the case of income of any persanfor sum H payable to anypemorq, income-tax is required to be deducted at the time of a'editor,as£heac§semt1ybe, atthe timeofpcymentat the ratesinfimae h/ HIGH courrr or KARNATAKA HIGH-'CQURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or-* KARNATAKA HIGH courzr or KARNATAKA HIGH 18 under the provisions of Sections 192, Z 193, [1941 194.4, [I94C} 19413, [194G}, (19411), (19441, (194.11, (1941:), x satisfied} that the tatal':If'Iif!'I;é"~::
income-tax at any n "*'?*'"'§~*GGI""" A V """ V oeraficaize is responsible fiar paying 'V at the rates speafied owfificafie or deduct no tax, as ' - may be. ' Subsection 2 of Section 195 of the Act, speruon responsible fiat paying any arrnunt V ' under this Act to a non-resident, considers the whiz of such sum would not be moo' me chargeablc in the case of the recipient, he may make an M/ IIGH courtr or KARNATAKAHIGH comm or-' KARNATAKA HIGH' COURT or: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH couwcr or KARNATAKA HIGH Co
- _ 19 application to the assessing ofiioer to determine the appropriate pardon of such sum so upon such determination. tax shall be Sub-%t1'on(1) only on that of V' .
is so chargeable. However, if :i_§ ofthe View tmt w tax is "
effect wuld be issued to mpqfisibxe for liability of under the 119 In so far as " it provides for a similar npplwa' _av the recipient of the man' me. «man being made under Section 197 .:( 1'}, ofioer can giw: to him such certificate . If such cezrfioatm states no tax is until such certificate is cancelled by the VA ofioer, the person respomibhe for payizg the . 'income is under 'Ho ob1ga' tion" to deduct tax wlnle' making payment. In fact the Language employed is V HIGH coon? OF KARNATAKA HIG!f:!IC€_)URT" OF KARNATAKA HIGH cousrr or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH comm' or KARNATAKA HIéH « 20 "Skull". The:-efore, it is mandatory in nature. What is the efibct of such a certificate was the subject of interpretation.
ran, SA Vs. Autumn:
octanars (2011) ' Ak with' the nature I Section 197 has held A that Ighé is mtenm' ' in rmmre not have been anytla' cter as the scope of
- Sectién a_'rk;I:1join1 readIrIg' of Sect1o' m 195 1970.1; any opinion 'm axprmsed at the; of "grfint. of certificate, it is tentative or intearxm """ in nature and the same docs not authority from under section 147 of the Act on the ground ' H nthgt s has been a change of opmm' ' n.
14. hIAdtya%"laNiwoLimi£'odVI. The Dapuqnlndorqfrumazcruaglaluwdandaflura Ag IGH comtr or KARNATAKAHIGH ccmg-.T or-' KARNATAKA HIGH' COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH counr or KARNATAKA HIGH couwr or KARNATAKA HIGH ca:
(2911 vat. 11: (4; non. LR. 2705;, the Bombay High Court held as £olIowu:-- V' 'A oemfioam under Section 1 * creatw zmmtmity to * Section 201 fbr order under Saaion 195. féflhafific 4' in nature and does not have_ any Seaian 201 and that stage and do;w'j'no£'V..pr'eclzzde__Ar(;ré:
czssessingofi_?csy' to' draryeabifitz; of in kregular assessment prOo;3€:1m§3--"'0f'lf¢?__.}'eCx?ver the ; in his words M th¢A W by my » it can be
-------- I:::!hat_b'nce 'the. under finm proceeding ' his e of an assessee under _ is in his mpacity as a 163 :3 as a representative of the non-nwident with all rights and obligation cm per . revisions contained in Seciian 161.
A' representative - emf cannot fiasazpe liability on the ground that the " asse%w'eapayerwasnotreqm'ree:l to deduct tax at source as per the Ceraficategranhed undersedion 195 (2) oftheAct."
HIGH comm" or KARNATAKA HIGHVCQURT or KARNATAKA HIGH counr or KARNATAKA IEIIGH coum or KARNATAKA men counr or KARNATAKA msn : 22
However. in the facts oftbe said case, it was held as fiakwur "me certificate obtained by " V Ewan by furnishing by malahgmisleadirtgstaheivmznts wauizi V not precluded the pmasedings of the 1961 tlzef discovered prima fiwie reveal AT'&'I'_U.SA (now NCWS) "to theshares ofthe.J'VC§'c:rz£ithe said % were oumedfbg AT&fl.f~VU.%3'A and . 4 447 not by'--AT&T"I£ci1;riféufs.._ Ca , on 'of gains A'!.'&;T U33 {wow NCWS} could as Rayon as _ .... proceedings 5 and 195 operate in * on record to suggwt under Section 19.5 (2) of Section 163, in our A f op:Z{u'or:, of proceedings under ' " 163 of the Act cannot be it 'a char that both the: payer and the V K A of the payment can approach the Assessing Aumority under the Act aa-Jung' for a oert1fiea' te providing for e:temp5mn from payment of tax i.e. V !lGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COUQT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO? 23
exemption from deducting tax at aouroc. Once such a certificate is issued, there is no obligation on tlfng of thc payer to pay tax. In View of the fact used b "shall", if the txf:
<m'mea' 1:6 and make it mraflablaisé H payer slmll mt deduct tax' .
obligation on tax as long as the said 1;}; cA O . Even if tax is payer cannot be If in a regular an "passed mzdm that that said the issue of such a certificate . prams' ion would not come in the ._Wé*_1_y.Oof and collecfing tax. However, the payer firaamd as an aaaeasee in default and he proceeded with. It is because as Kong as the cezrtifwatc stands, the payer shall not males any and shall not deduct from the consideration payablc to the recipiant. However, the said ocrtificate is n/ Lnc-an coukr or KARNATAKA HIGH. CQURT or KARNATAKA HIGH coum or KARNATAKA HIGH coum' or KARNATAKA HIGH courrr or KARNATAKA man i tentative or provfiional or interim in nature. It does not Sectkm 201 of the Act. The stage. It does not pmaclude either reeazax1:nne' V the of " 7 I payer in his in the nature of a tlmt may follow outjbf ~ "
I6. the consistent atand of tlmt the cozmideration paid ii" is by way of reimbursement even when a credit entry the as the assesses was treatmg' of expenses, he was to deduct tax fiom the said amount "&.$_ t&" amount did not represent income. When approached the Assessing mm and made the reprmentntion, a cert¢fica' be under Section 197(1) earns to be issued. On the face of the certificate kg IGH couwr OF KARNATAKAHIGH ceuar or-' KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH couwr or KARNATAKA HIGH coum' OF KARNATAKA HIGH Co: 25 issued under Section 197(1) being made avaimble to the deducted tax at source. Therefore, he as a defaulter under Iaw.
defautt as understood under :;_:A
17. 'Therefore, the on justified in so-trim me Tribunal while taken mm of the fact while passing an with the asaesaee in not of Section 195 and " 'Authority' accepted the case of the A 1 Ev the said' conmdera' tion represents of the actual expenditure and granted =:I.zg ma benefit. The junadmt1' ' 'om: comm1se' inner did ' ' be any revm. ' ional proceedmga' to interfere with said order. It is in that context the 'I'ribuna1 was justifledirxholdirgthatthehefihanddoes notlmow V '-HGH COURT OF KARNATAKA H|GH.CO_}URT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH 26 what the right hand b dam. Therefore. in the facts of the case, the authorities were estopped from proceedings under Seems' n 201 of the the substantial questimm of law_ " » ofthc aamsee and a.ga:.ns' t the Rf: R
18. In so far as cross V appeal on merit: is was mt 1'°'1uireci tn dggiuct could not be declared question whet&' the O a fee for managerial mixnbursement Eat the whethcr Doubts Taxation ' the provisiorm ofthe Act e ware made ava11a' ble for not be gum into. Therefore, flu , which ware recorded by the authormw' ' not inqum3d' into. It Oh made clear that if on of such findinga, if any claim is made, it is to the assassee to urge the grounds whichha has urgad in this cross objecflon and the authority almll u/ cum 0:: KARNATAKAHIGH counr Q'Fv-KARNATAKA HIGH coum or KARNATAKA HIGH comer or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or-' KARNATAKA HIGH mum M 27 decidc the said qumtion afresh without in ___way proceedings or by the Tribunal, that wouiéi erfis of
19. In the resu1m,' aI1.
objeactions are d'mn1n$_jaec1.
sd/-
% --- % .% JUDGE