2015 (5) TMI 829

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 20.07.2012 in several appeals preferred by the assessee for Assessment Years (AYs) 1999-2000 to 2004-05. Its grievance is that the ITAT erroneously examined the merits of the contentions and drew inferences in the assessee's favour which were entirely unwarranted. 2. This Court does not propose to discuss the facts in detail in view of the final order made. The assessee (Swedish company) is a subsidiary of LME. It entered into a contract with Indian telecom service providers during 1995-97 for supply of telecommunication equipments which comprise hardware and software components. It claimed that it was not liable to tax under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and also relied upon a Double T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lected from Cellular operators u/s 133(6) of the Act much after the Order of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 1997-98. The Ld. CIT(A), without confronting the assessee or the Assessing Officer tried to make out a case that the facts are different in these years . He summarized the new facts/evidences at para 3.3 of his order at pages 6 to 11. The basis on which this summary is arrived is not stated. A perusal of this summary demonstrates that the Ld.CIT(A) has not indicated as to what is the documentary evidences are relied upon by him for coming to a conclusion, that the facts of the current years are different from that of the earlier years. General observations are made and vague conclusions are d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e proceeded with first instance appreciation of such material. Learned counsel pointed to the explanation of CIT (Appeals)'s powers under Section 251 of the Act that empowered it to not only set aside the AO's order but also pass such orders as may be appropriate after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee in the circumstances as warranted. The ITAT ought to have remitted the matter to CIT (Appeals). 6. Learned senior counsel for the assessee, Mr. Percy Pardiwala, resisted the submissions of the Revenue and contended that the impugned order should not be disturbed. He argued that the findings with respect to the title of the goods passing in the high seas and, therefore, being outside the jurisdiction of India cannot be faulted w....