Cit v. Tata
High Court
17 Oct 2006 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Cit v. Tata
Date of order
17 Oct 2006
Assessment year(s)
1987-88
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Cit v. Tata, the High Court (2006) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
Income Tax Application No.99 of 2002
The Commissioner of Income Tax. ... Petitioner
v/s.
Tata Iron and Steel Co.Ltd. ... Respondent
Mr.A.N.Kotangale for petitioner.
Mr.P.C.Tripathi with Mr.Dinesh Vyas for
respondent.
-----
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 17th October 2006
P.C. :
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The present Application concerning the
respondent’s tax liability for the assessment year
1987-88 seeks to raise the following question of
law:-
" Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal
was right in law in upholding the order of
the CIT (A) that the expenditure incurred
by the assessee in India in providing
facilities / reimbursement of incidental
expenses to the foreign technicians is not
fees for technical services and no tax is
deductible at source in respect of these
-2-
expenditure ? "
3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal declined
to refer the question by its order passed on 23rd
July 1996. The Tribunal took a view that it was
purely a question of fact and no referable
question of law had arisen. The question sought
to be raised is with respect to the deductions to
be effected under Section 195(1) of the Income Tax
Act, to which the defence of the respondent was
under sub-section (2) of Section 195. As far as
this aspect is concerned, it has been concluded in
favour of the respondent in a judgment rendered by
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
CIT vs. Tata
CIT vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co.Ltd.reported in 245 ITR page 823 wherein the Division
reported in 245 ITR page 823
has held that no substantial question of law
arose with respect to the particular assessment
year which was before the Court. In view of that
decision, we do not think that in the present
matter also any reference should be called for.
Application is rejected.
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.