TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 585
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....80/2017, 281/2017, 282/2017 & 283/2017 2. These are four appeals by the Assessee, Sumitomo Corporation, under Section 260A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). These appeals are directed against two sets of common orders dated 30th November, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT'). 3. ITA Nos. 282 and 283 of 2017 by the Assessee are against the common order dated 30th November 2016 passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 2559/Del/2003 (being the Assessee's appeal) and ITA No. 2661/Del/2003 (being the Revenue's appeal) for the AY 1998-99. 4. ITA Nos. 280 and 281 of 2017 by the Assessee are against the common order dated 30th November 2016 passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 1419/Del/2006 (being the Revenue's appeal) and ITA No. 867/D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 40 (a) (ia) could not be invoked to disallow the claim of Assessee for deduction, even if the sum in question was chargeable to tax in India. 53. It is further observed from the orders passed by the learned CIT (A) that interest of the revenue would be served by disallowing that part of the amount claimed by the Assessee on which the US company has not paid tax for the year under consideration. In this case it has been observed by the learned CIT (A) that the tax has been paid by the recipient by including the entire amount received in its income for the same financial year which satisfied the requirement of Section 40 (a)(ia). There has been no doubt, raised by the authorities below regarding the nature of expenditure and the tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3) of the DTAA, Section 40 (a) (i) could not be invoked to disallow the claim of assessee for deduction, even if the sum in question was chargeable to tax in India. 9.2. It is further observed from the orders passed by the CIT (A) that the interest of the revenue would be served by disallowing that part of the of the amount claimed by the assessee on which the US company has not paid tax for the year under consideration. In this case it has been observed by Ld. CIT (A) that the tax has been paid by the recipient by including the entire mount received in its income for the same financial year which satisfies the requirement of Section 40 (a)(ia). There has been no doubt that has been raised by the authorities below regarding the nature of e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowable as a deduction in the year in which it was made i.e AY 1998-99. There was no basis for the CIT (A) to have restricted the deduction to Rs. 1.20 crore for AY 1999-2000 while allowing Rs. 7.9 crores as deduction for AY 1998-99. He further pointed out that the CIT (A) had also himself verified that GEI had already paid taxes on the payments made to them by the Assessee. 11. While Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, learned Senior standing counsel for the Revenue does not dispute that the issue stands answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by the decision of this Court in CIT v. Herbalife International Private Limited (supra), he seeks to contend that the remand by the ITAT to the AO was innocuous; it was merely for the purpose of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he AO and as argued by the Appellant before me." 13. When the facts are absolutely clear that GE International had in AY 1998-99 paid tax on gross basis as regards the payment received from the Assessee, the question of again remanding the matter to the AO for verification of the above tax payment by GEI was wholly unnecessary. Instead a categorical consequential finding ought to have been rendered by the ITAT that there was no obligation on the Assessee to deduct any tax under Section 195 of the Act on the payments made to GEI in Japan and therefore the question of disallowance under Section 40 (a) (i) of the Act of the payment of Rs. 9.10 crores in the AY 1998-99 did not arise. 14. Consequently, question (i) framed above is answered in ....