TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1360
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal') passed in ITA No. 1388/Del/2011. The assessment year involved is 2007-08. 2. Following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the present appeal: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the ld. CIT (A) Rohtak, whereby the addition made by the AO treating the surcharge accrued during the year amounting Rs. 89.66 crore on account of delayed payment of electricity bills by the consumers as income had been deleted, ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that the assessee has been following mercantile system of accounting? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Haryana. It purchases electricity from M/s Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited, Panchkula (HPGCL) and distributes the same to the consumers. The electricity from the source i.e. generation point to the consumers is transmitted through the transmission network of Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (HVPNL). The rates of purchase and supply of electricity are fixed by the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (HERC). Thus, the electricity purchased from HPGCL is transmitted through the distribution points of HVPNL. Respondent makes payment for transmission of electricity to HVPNL on the rates fixed by the HERC. The respondent is thus rendering ''technical services'' and is earning income within the meaning of Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 2010 decided on 08.05.2014. In the said ITA, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh in the light of the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Delhi Vs. Bharti Cellular Limited (2011) 330 ITR 239. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below: 7. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the issue arising in these appeals requires to be re-adjudicated by the Assessing Officer keeping in view the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court in Bharti Cellular Limited's case (supra). The Apex Court while discussing the scope of "tec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement between, let us say, M/s. Bharti Cellular Limited and BSNL in these cases is based on obligations and counter obligations, which is called a "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission has not been examined by the Tribunal. 9. In short, the above aspects need reconsideration by the Assessing Officer. We make it clear that the assessee(s) is not at fault in these case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to examine the technical expert and after examining him adjudicate the matter afresh. In the present case as well from the perusal of the orders of the authorities below, it is not discernible whether there was any intervention of the human element in the services provided to the assessee. 9. Accordingly, while setting aside the orders of the authorities below, the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer to examine afresh in the light of the observations made by the Apex Court in Bharti Cellular Limited's case (supra), noted above. Further, the assessing authority shall also examine whether the Provisos inserted in Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) by Finance Act, 2012 are applicable retrospectively, as urged by learned counsel for the....