Case Law Details
CIT Vs Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (Karnataka High Court)
Specific case of the Revenue before the ITAT is that the Contract is a composite one. Shri. Chaitanya is right in his submission that the dominant purpose of the Contract is supply of the passenger rolling stock. Thus, having taken a specific stand before the ITAT that the Contracts is a composite one, the Revenue cannot be permitted to take a contradictory stand before this Court. In ONGC Ltd. cited by Shri. Chaitanya, it is held as follows:
”8. At the outset, we may note that although in view of the orders passed by the Committee on disputes, advising the revenue not to file appeals against Tribunal’s orders, we find some substance in the objection of learned counsel for the assessee about the maintainability of revenue’s appeals before the High Court but as we have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits of the appeals, at this stage, we do not propose to go into this question. We also reject at the threshold the submission of learned counsel for the revenue that the claim of the assessee qua capital account deserved to be disallowed because no agreement between the assessee and the foreign creditors, as observed by the High Court was placed on record, because no such objection was raised by the revenue at any stage of the assessment proceedings nor had the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee on that ground.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
In A.P. Moller Maersk, it is held as follows:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
