The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal as the tax effect was below prescribed limits and the legal ground regarding royalty under Section 2(15) was legally unsustainable based on prior judgments.
The appeal is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~6
COMMISSIONER OF I. TAX (EXEMPTION) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. P. Roy Choudhuri, Sr. Standing Counsel versus TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD ..... Respondent Through: Mr V.P. Gupta, Adv.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI O R D E R % 09.12.2016
We notice at the outset that tax effect is much below the prescribed limits in terms of the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 10th December, 2015. Even otherwise, the question of law urged, i.e., whether the royalty received fell within the mischief of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is absolutely an illegal ground on account of several judgments by this including the judgment in ITPO v. DGIT (Exemption) (2015) 371 ITR 333 (Delhi). No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
DECEMBER 09, 2016/acm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the royalty received fell within the mischief of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
ITPO v. DGIT (Exemption) (2015) 371 ITR 333 (Delhi)Distinguished¶6
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of I. Tax (Exemption)
Technology Development Board
S. Ravindra Bhat
Najmi Waziri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
