Case LawHigh Court › Cit v. Tata

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.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan