Commissioner of Income Tax vs Impulse India (P.) Ltd.

The contention of learned counsel for the Revenue is that the issue as to whether consultancy fee from foreign principals was as a result of supply of designs or otherwise has not been considered by Tribunal. We have perused the judgment of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dealt with the issue in detail and came to the conclusion that the assessee had supplied designs to the foreign principals for which the requisite consultancy fee was charged. For arriving at this conclusion, the CIT(A) scanned through the agreements entered into between the assessee and foreign principals namely M/s Paul Smith, J.P. Boden Ltd; Warnaco Inc. and Palmer Corporation Ltd. etc. The CIT(A) has also recorded that copy of some of the designs developed and supplied by the assessee to its overseas principals were filed by the assessee. In the appeal filed by Revenue before, revenue has taken solitary ground, as shown to us by learned counsel for the assessee by producing copy of the appeal preferred by the revenue, which is as under :-

"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) hap erred in deleting, disallowance of deduction claimed of Rs. 17,95,572 u/s 80O of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer."

Therefore, it not clear as to whether argument advanced before us was at all canvassed before Tribunal or not. It would be of interest to note that in the present appeal preferred by the Revenue there ho averment to that argument was raised but not considered by the ITAT.

Furthermore, Mr. Aggarwal, has brought to our notice the assessment order for Assessment Year 2002-2003 where Assessing Officer himself has'' allowed deduction claimed u/s 80O of the Income Tax Act on identical grounds.

In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed.