The Commissioner Of Income Tax 19, Mumbai v. M/S.petroleum India International

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.242 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax 19, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus M/s.Petroleum India International ..Respondent. Ms.S.V. Bharucha for the appellant.None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 25[th] March 2013 P.C. : 1.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2001-02, following questions of law have been formulated for our consideration. “a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was eligible for claiming deduction under Section80-O on the ground that the assessee was supplying comprehensive technical services for designing and development of Salima Refineries which would also include to “depute a competent team of professionals as one of the services besides other services as mentioned in terms of reference and deliverable of assignment ?Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was eligible for claiming deduction under Section80-O on the ground that the assessee was supplying comprehensive technical services for designing and development of Salima Refineries which would also include to “depute a competent team of professionals as one of the services besides other services as mentioned in terms of reference and deliverable of assignment ? b)Whether on true and proper interpretation of Section 40(a)(iii) read with Section 192 and 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the dis-allowance under Section read with Section 192 and 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the dis-allowance under Section 40(a)(iii) when the assessee failed to deduct tax at source on payments made to the employees ? c)Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the dis-allowance made by the AO under Section 91(1) of the Income Tax Act although the assessee has not paid the taxes in Kuwait before the end of previous year since there was no agreement between India and Kuwait Government for double taxation ?”allowance made by the AO under Section 91(1) of the Income Tax Act although the assessee has not paid the taxes in Kuwait before the end of previous year since there was no agreement between India and Kuwait Government for double taxation ?” 2.Counsel for the Revenue fairly states that the issue arising in the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by order dated 12[th] March 2013 passed in Income Tax Appeal No.1499 of 2012 filed by the Revenue in respect of the same respondent – assessee. In view of the above, for the reasons indicated in our order dated 12[th] March 2013 in Income Tax Appeal No.1499 of 2012, we see no reason to entertain the proposed questions of law. 3.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)