Appeal deemed maintainable, objections dismissed on trademark rights agreement, upheld consistency principle, appeal dismissed for lack of legal questions.

The appeal challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order was deemed maintainable by the Court. The objections raised by the Respondent regarding the agreement on trademark rights were dismissed, with the Tribunal's analysis supporting the use of trademarks under specific conditions. The Court upheld the principle of consistency in its decision, finding no new evidence to warrant a different outcome from previous assessments. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed for not raising substantial legal questions, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29th July, 2011; Maintainability of present appeal; Dismissal of appeals on technical grounds; Interpretation of agreement between parties regarding trademark rights; Application of principle of consistency by tribunal in relation to earlier assessment years.

Analysis:
The appeal challenges the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29th July, 2011. The Respondent raises an objection to the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that the questions raised were already subject to a substantive appeal before the Court in earlier cases. These appeals were dismissed by the Court due to being barred by limitation. Despite the Supreme Court granting liberty to the department to review the order, the review petitions were not pursued. The Court notes that the appeals were dismissed not on merits but on technical grounds, and therefore, the present appeal is maintainable.

Regarding the interpretation of the agreement between the parties concerning trademark rights, the Tribunal reversed the findings of the Joint Commissioner after examining the agreement between the parties. The agreement allowed the Assessee to use the trade mark of M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd. for seven years under specific conditions. The Tribunal concluded that the trade marks were not acquired by the Assessee but were used under a registered user agreement for a limited period and fee. The Tribunal's findings were based on a comprehensive analysis of the arrangement and cannot be considered erroneous or perverse. Thus, the first question raised cannot be deemed a substantial question of law.

In relation to the second and third questions, the Tribunal referred to facts from earlier assessment years and found no distinguishing features to deviate from its earlier view. The Tribunal applied the principle of consistency and upheld its previous findings, as the Revenue failed to present any new evidence. Consequently, even these questions were not considered substantial questions of law. The appeal was ultimately dismissed as it did not raise any substantial questions of law, and no costs were awarded.

---