The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8, Mumbai v. Kinetic Motors Co.ltd

ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.978 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai .. Appellant Vs. Kinetic Motors Co.Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr.N.N.Singh for the appellant Mr.S.N.Inamdar, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Mihir Naniwadekar for the respondent CORAM: J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ.DATE: 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2011.DATE: 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Two questions of law raised by the Revenue in this appeal read thus: I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in allowing the payment of royalty of Rs.2,49,65,801/- paid to Honda Motors Co. Ltd. for technical knowhow.whether the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in allowing the payment of royalty of Rs.2,49,65,801/- paid to Honda Motors Co. Ltd. for technical knowhow. II. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in setting aside the issue of addition of Rs.90 lacs on account of Warranty Provisions to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh in view of ITAT’s own decision in assessee’s own case in ITA No.148/PN/2006 for AY 2002-03.the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in setting aside the issue of addition of Rs.90 lacs on account of Warranty Provisions to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh in view of ITAT’s own decision in assessee’s own case in ITA No.148/PN/2006 for AY 2002-03. 2. The counsel for the parties state as regards the first question is concerned, similar questions raised by the Revenue in the case of C.I.T. II, concerned, similar questions raised by the Revenue in the case of C.I.T. II, Pune vs. Kinetic Honda Motor Ltd., Pune has been dismissed by this court by order dated 2.5.2009. Accordingly, first question cannot be entertained. 3. As regards second question is concerned, since the ITAT has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with law, we are not inclined to entertain the second question. While passing fresh order, the Assessing Officer shall inter alia take into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls India P.Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC). 4. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. (K.K. TATED, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)