2020 (1) TMI 1138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Sridevan For Respondent: Mr. Karthick Ranganathan, Senior Standing Counsel.   J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. KIRUBAKARAN, J) This tax case appeal has been filed against the dismissal order passed in the stay petition in the appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel. 2. The petitioner is a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inath Sridevan, learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant had already paid Rs. 75 lakhs whereas their claim is only for Rs. 1,09,75,510/-. Moreover, even in the previous financial years also, the assessee got relief from the Tribunal, even though the Dispute Resolution Panel upheld the order of assessment officer disallowing the deduction of Agency Commission. Therefore, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....parties and perused the records. 6.This Tax Case Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether 'Prima facie case' requires positive evidence of certainty of victory? (ii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal erred in holding that decision of the Co-ordinate Benches of Hon'ble ITAT, holding the arms-length value under the Agency Agreement to be valid, i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... already paid a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs. The issue with regard to the claim for deduction of Agency Commission has to be decided only by the Tribunal. Pending disposal, what has to be seen is whether prima facie case has been made out by the appellant or not. In the view of the Tribunal, prima facie case is not made out. However, taking into consideration of the previous history and the fact that the ....