TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 723
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) on 29.04.2016 manually. While dismissing the appeal in limine, it has been stated by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the impugned order that vide Notification no. 11 of 2016 (F No. 149/150/2015-TPL) issued on 1st March, 2016, any person who was required to file the return of income electronically was to furnish the appeal (Form No. 35) electronically only. The Ld. CIT (A) also stated that vide Circular No. 20 of 2016 dated 26.05.2016, the CBDT has extended the date for e-filing of appeals till 15.06.2016. The Ld. CIT (A) held that since the assessee had not filed the appeal electronically, the appeal was to be dismissed as being in fructuous. Against this order passed by the Ld. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India Ltd.) amalgamated into erstwhile Mahle and in effect a facade was created so that the appellant could claim the benefit of section 80IC of the Act. 6. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that though, from the wording of the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and scheme of arrangement for merger, it appears that Mahle Filter Systems (India) Ltd. got merged with Purolator India Ltd. but the facts are completely contradictory. 6.1 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that for all effective purposes, Purolator India Ltd. got merged with Mahle Filter Systems (India) Ltd. and a facade was created so that the resultant company which is Mahle Filter Systems Ltd., i.e., th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....). 6.6 That the Ld. assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the amalgamation was purely a business and a strategic decision in order to expand and to synergize its business operations and the Directorate of Industries, had acknowledged the merger of erstwhile Mahle into the appellant and consequent change of name of the appellant. 6.7 That the Ld. assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that 'other income' being rent receipts, interest receipts, scrap sales, discount received, foreign exchange gain, etc. amounting to Rs. 67,88,259 not being the profits derived from manufacturing activities as the Parwanoo unit, is to be excluded from profits eligible for deduction under section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ature of fees for technical services and therefore, no tax was required to be deducted at source under section 195 of the Act from the above payments. Re: Royalty payments 8. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing a sum of Rs. l ,18,43,476 out of the royalty paid to Mahle Filter Systeme GmbH and Mahle Filter Systems Japan as per the 'Technical Assistance Agreement' holding the same to be a capital expenditure incurred for acquisition of intangible asset. 8.1 That the assessing officer erred on facts and has failed to appreciate that the royalty was paid only for license to use technology and the same was an allowable deduction as revenue expenditure. Re: Charge of interest ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Circular of the CBDT, the assessee could not be held to be at fault for not filing the appeal in the electronic mode. Referring to Para 3 of the said notification, the Ld. AR pointed out that as per the notification, appeals filed electronically before 15.06.2016 were to be treated as appeals filed within time. It was also submitted that the assessee has filed the appeal electronically also on 10.05.2017 which was still pending before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A). 4.0 Per contra, the Ld. Senior DR vehemently argued that the Ld. CIT (A) had no option but to dismiss the appeal because it was mandated by the Rules that appeals filed manually by any person who was required to file the return of income electronically could not be en....