(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) We have heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt learned Senior Standing counsel assisted by Mrs. Mauma M. Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
ADMIT.
We formulate the following substantial questions of law which arise in this appeal :-
"[I] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the income of Rs.1,71,97,548/- received by the assessee from the Panvel Dabhol Pipe Line (PDPL) Project was in the nature of 'business income' or 'fees for technical services' and whether the same is to be taxed @40% or 10% ?
[II] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of Section 115A (1)(b)(BB) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are squarely applicable for determining the rate of tax applicable on fees for technical services ?
[III] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in ignoring the fact that what has more sanctity - Cooperation Agreement or contract entered by GAIL with Consortium ?"
Issue notice to the other side. Paper book be filed within 3 months.
[V.
M. SAHAI, J.] [N.
V. ANJARIA, J.] Savariya Top