2012 (3) TMI 579 - HC - Income Tax

Court allows condonation of delay in refiling. Examines jurisdiction under Income Tax Act. Taxation issues reviewed.

DIRECTOR INCOME TAX Versus ROLLS ROYCE INDUSTRIAL POWER INDIA LTD.

DIRECTOR INCOME TAX Versus ROLLS ROYCE INDUSTRIAL POWER INDIA LTD. - TMI Issues involved: Condonation of delay in refiling, validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, taxation of income from operation and maintenance, applicability of provisions u/s 115A and 44D, discrimination in tax treatment, taxation of interest income under DTAA, classification of Liaison Offices, entitlement to carry forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation.Condonation of delay in refiling: The application for condonation of delay in refiling was allowed as there was no objection from the assessee.Validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148: The substantial question of law was whether the ITAT was right in holding that assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act was not valid based on the facts and circumstances of the case.Taxation of income from operation and maintenance: Another question was whether the income from operation and maintenance of Godavari Power Station should be taxable as business income and not as fee for technical services u/s 9 of the Act and Article 13 of the DTAA between India and UK.Applicability of provisions u/s 115A and 44D: The ITAT was questioned on whether the provisions of section 115A read with section 44D of the Act were applicable to the income from Godavari (O and M) Project.Discrimination in tax treatment: It was also in question whether subjecting the assessee to tax on a gross basis would amount to discrimination vis-a-vis an Indian company carrying on the same business, within the meaning of Article 26 of the DTAA between India and UK.Taxation of interest income under DTAA: The ITAT was asked to determine if interest income earned by the assessee outside India, although from funds arising out of projects, was liable to be taxed in India under the provisions of the DTAA between India and UK.Classification of Liaison Offices: The ITAT's conclusion on the classification of Liaison Offices as cost centres and not permanent establishments, and the attribution of income to such cost centres, was also under scrutiny.Entitlement to carry forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation: Lastly, the question arose whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of carry forward of losses and unabsorbed depreciation even when the income was computed on a gross basis.The parties were given liberty to file documents/material within 12 weeks, and the case was listed in the category of Regular Matters as per its turn.