2014 (1) TMI 646

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Jain and Mahesh Kumar. ORDER:- PER : R.S. Syal These two appeals by the assessee relate to the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06. Since some of the issues raised in these appeals are common, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. A.Y. 2004-05 2. Ground Nos.1 and 1.1 are general, not requiring any adjudication. Gro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....port for the use of trade mark and brand name of foreign collaborators. The ld CIT (A), following the view taken by him in preceding year, decided this issue against the assessee. The assessee is in appeal against this decision of the ld. first appellate authority. 5. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that similar issue came up for adj....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue is set aside. 6. In the result the appeal for the AY 2004-05 is partly allowed. A.Y. 2005-06 7. Ground Nos. 1 and 1.1 are general and hence do not require any adjudication. 8. Ground No.1.2 is against the making of an addition on the licence fees paid by the assessee to its AE. Here also the facts are alike to that of the preceding year, as per which the assessee paid licence fees @....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....60,855 @ 13.06% as per the provisions of section 115O of the Act. It was contended before the ld. first appellate authority that Article 10 of the DTAA provides for paying tax on dividend at not more than10%. It was argued that the AO ought to have considered the effect of Article 10 of the DTAA. This issue was taken up before the ld CIT (A) through Ground No.7 and the mention of the same is there....