TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1482
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that profit of the assessee branch in USA viz. Birla consultancy software Services is not taxable in India without examining the facts of the case and without appreciating the fact as per Article 24(2)(a) of the DTAA only deduction in respect of taxes on income paid in USA should be allowed as deduction from the tax payable in India, and therefore this decision of the Tribunal is perverse on facts?" 2. "Whether on the facts and n the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that profit from power generated are eligible for deduction for the purpose of book profit u/s 115JA without appreciating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt from the book profit does not arise"? 7. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal justified in allowing deduction of gratuity and leave salary from computation of profit u/s. 115JA by relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd 251 ITR 15, when the facts are not similar in as much as in the case of Echjay Forgings the amount disallowed were debited to the P & L A/c, but was disallowed by the Assessing Officer whereas in the assessee's case, the aforesaid liability were not debited to the Profit & Loss and therefore allowing deduction on these count from the book profit u/s 115JA does not arise?" 8. "Whether on the facts and n the circumstanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Revenue does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 4. Re. Question No.(2): (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal has dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue by following its order in the case of the same Respondent Assessee for the Assessment Year 1998-99. (b) Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Revenue, very fairly points out that although an appeal was filed by the Revenue from the order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 1998-99, no issue on the question raised herein was urged in the appeal, being Appeal No.964 of 2013. Incidentally, it may be pointed out that the above Appeal No.964 of 2013 was also dismissed by this Court by an order dated 22 March 2013. (c) In the abo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nwards the Assessing Officer has himself allowed expenses of a similar nature. (b) Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Revenue states that although an appeal in respect of the order passed for Assessment Year 1998-99 was filed in this Court being Income Tax Appeal No.964 of 2013, no question with regard to this issue was raised therein. It may be pointed out that Income Tax Appeal No.964 of 2013 was dismissed on 22 March 2013. Further, Mr. Suresh Kumar states that there is nothing on record to indicate that any appeal has been filed from the order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 199495. (c) In the above view, as the impugned order of the Tribunal has merely followed its order for Assessment Years 199495 and 1998-99 which has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... significance in this case, as the proposed addition on the basis of the Explanation 1 to Section 115 JB of the Act can only be made if the amounts are debited to profit and loss Account to arrive at the book profits. (c) Therefore, no distinguishing feature which would warrant our taking a view different from one taken in Echjay Forgings (supra) arises. Therefore, this issue stands concluded in favour of the Respondent Assessee by decision of this Court in Echjay Forgings (supra). (d) Therefore, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Therefore, not entertained. 8. Re. Question No.(8): (a) We find that the issue raised herein was an additional issue raised by the Respondent Assessee before the Tr....