Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.27 seconds)

Sms Concast Ag, New Delhi vs Ddit, New Delhi on 16 June, 2023

13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The ld AR fairly submitted that this issue is to be decided against the assessee in view of the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of sister concern of assessee named SMS Concast A.G. vs DDIT in ITA 1361/Del/2012 for AY 2008-09 dated 16.06.2023. The relevant operative portion of the order is reproduced below:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - G S Pannu - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Klayman Porcelains Ltd. on 9 July, 1997

He submitted that the sum mentioned in the reasons are Rs.31,11,699/- and he also brought to our notice page 19 of the paper book which is the annexure of the reasons to believe. The amount mentioned in page 19 and reasons to believe recorded are wrong and factually incorrect. He submitted that basis of reasons are factually incorrect. Accordingly, he brought to our notice page 25 of the paper book which is the decision of ITAT, Vishakhapatnam for AY 1992-93 wherein ITAT considered the facts on record and held by referring to the case of CIT v. Klayman Porcelains Ltd. (1988) 229 ITR 735 (AP) wherein Hon‟ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the design and documentation fees cannot be considered as royalty but is only to be considered as part of plant supplied from abroad. Further he brought to our notice pages 30 to 38 of the paper book wherein ITAT, Vishakhapatnam gave relief to the assessee on the similar ground.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 3 - Cited by 13 - S S Quadri - Full Document
1   2 Next