TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (3) TMI 326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... B. Whether the action of the Tribunal in merely following its observations in relation to the assessment year 1997-98 while deleting disallowance on account of reimbursement of expenses without appreciating the differential facts of the two years is judicially justifiable? C. Whether in the absence of any proof from third parties other than those of the Arthur Andersen group it can be judicially concluded that software services were rendered? D. Without prejudice whether in cases where employees of Indian concern are merely assisting the foreign company which is rendering services to its clients for software development it can be legally said HF. that the Indian company is rendering technical services in connection with developmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... noted that the only grievance raised by the Revenue in the appeal was as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XL, Mumbai, has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,66,19,762 being 20 percent. of the expenses of Rs.8,30,98,810 reimbursed to Arthur Anderson World-wide Societe Co-operative." 5. The Tribunal from the facts on record noted that the assessee being a chartered accountants firm is a member of Arthur Anderson World-wide SC (AWSC, in short). - The assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.8,30,98,810 on account of reimbursement of expenses under the member-firm inter-firm agreement with Arthur Anderson World-wide Switzer land. This deduction was, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot the consequences following from accepting the same and accordingly upheld the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and accordingly dismissed the appeal. 7. It is thus clear that the Assessing Officer himself for the assessment year 1997-98 allowed the expenditure. However, disallowed 20 per cent. of the said expenditure which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). In an appeal preferred by the Revenue, that order was upheld Relying on the said order for the assessment year 1998-99 the Tribunal observed as under: "Following our order for the assessment year 1997-98 and in the light of the Assessing Officer's categorical findings in the remand proceedings, we deem it fit and proper to direct ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C) and other judgments held that the principle established is that if the Revenue has not challenged the correctness of law laid down by the High Court and has accepted in the case of an assessee then it is not open to the Revenue to challenge its correctness in the case of other assessees without just cause. Therefore, the law laid down in Berger Paints India Ltd. [2004]266 ITR 99 (SC) was based on acceptance of the judgment of the High Courts. This is further so as the judgment of the High Court would be binding on all authorities functioning within its jurisdiction and more so considering the interpretation of law which were binding on the Revenue. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. (No.1) [(2007] 289 ITR 261 h....