JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC.,AHMEDABAD V. THE DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-I, AHMEDABAD

MA 98/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Joshi Technologies International Inc. appealing against the orders of the Deputy Director and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax concerning various assessment years. The appeals primarily focused on the adjudication of certain grounds related to the assessment of income and claims for depreciation. The Tribunal examined the grounds of the Miscellaneous Applications, which sought corrections and modifications in the previous orders, arguing that certain claims and directions were not adequately addressed or were incorrectly adjudicated. The Tribunal's decision involved a detailed examination of the legal provisions applicable, previous rulings, and the specific claims made by the appellant.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 41000 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Other Referred Cases: ITAT order for A.Y. 2007-08
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B.P. SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH SHAH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation; Double taxation relief
• Section: 32(1)(iia)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. Nos.98 to 101/Ahd/2024 (in ITA Nos.738,767&739/Ahd/2014 & 146/Ahd/2015) (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12) Joshi Technologies International Inc. India Projects, B-701-702, Sankalp Iconic, Opp. Vikram Nagar, Iscon Temple Cross Road, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad Vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tac (Intl. Tax)-1, Ahmedabad The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tac (Intl. Tax)-1, Ahmedabad [PAN No.AAACJ9529P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Yogesh Shah, A.R. Respondent by: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 25.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 24.01.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JM: M.A. No. 98/Ahd/2024 (arising out of ITA No. 738/Ahd/2014) In Ground No. 2: Mistakes apparent from record in Ground No. 1 In the present Miscellaneous Application, the applicant had submitted that while adjudicating Ground No.1, the Bench has restored the matter to the file of AO to grant relief to the assessee, in accordance with law. However, the Bench followed directions in disposing the grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 of assessee’s appeal, vide Para 14 of the said order. In the said order, it was mentioned that the similar ground was set-aside to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in light of orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It was submitted that a similar direction also needs MA Nos.98 to 101/Ahd/2024 (in ITA Nos. 738,767&739/Ahd/2014 & 146/A/15) Joshi Technologies International Inc. vs. DDIT/DCIT Asst.Years –2009-10 to 2011-12 - 2 - to be passed with respect to this ground of appeal. This ground of appeal was raised by the Department as Ground No. 1 in ITA No. 789/Ahd/2014. 2. In light of the submission made by the assesse / applicant, we direct that Para 32 at Page 21 shall stand modified to the extent that “AO should adjudicate in the light of the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India”. 3. In the result, Ground No. 2 of the Miscellaneous Application is allowed. In Ground No. 3: Mistakes apparent from records in Ground No.4 4. Vide this ground, the applicant submitted that while adjudicating on the ground with respect to training expenses, the Bench held that Ground No. 4 of the Department’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The applicant submitted before us that the order at Para No. 44 needs to be modified so as to mention that Department’s appeal is set-aside to AO. 5. We find no merit in the contention of the assessee, since in Para 3 it has been specifically stated that the matter is restored to the file of AO to look into the matter afresh and therefore, it was for this reason that it was held in Para 44 that the Department’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. MA Nos.98 to 101/Ahd/2024 (in ITA Nos. 738,767&739/Ahd/2014 & 146/A/15) Joshi Technologies International Inc. vs. DDIT/DCIT Asst.Years –2009-10 to 2011-12 - 3 - 7. In the combined result, the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee / applicant is partly allowed. M.A. No. 99/Ahd/2024 (arising out of ITA No. 767/Ahd/2014) Ground No. 2: Mistakes apparent from Ground No. 2.2 8. Vide the present Miscellaneous Application, the first issue raised by the applicant is that the Bench has erred in not holding that alternate claim for depreciation should also be allowed for “oil field equipment” in line with direction provided in A.Y. 2007-08 in assessee’s own case. The applicant submitted that similar directions were given in earlier years as may be seen from ITAT order for A.Y. 2007-08 (Para 8 at Page 9 of order). 9. In light of the above submission of the applicant, we observe that at Page 9, Para 8, the ITAT held that assessee is eligible for claim of depreciation on “oil field equipment” @ 60%. 10. In the result, Para 9 stands modified to allow for “claim of depreciation of “oil field equipment” in line with directions of ITAT for A.Y. 2007-08. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of applicant. 11. In Ground No. 2, the applicant submitted that in Ground No. 2.2 the applicant had also raised claim of additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act which was not adjudicated by ITAT. 12. While passing the order, we note that the assessee had placed reliance on observations made by ITAT in the order in assessee’s own case for A.Y. MA Nos.98 to 101/Ahd/2024 (in ITA Nos. 738,767&739/Ahd/2014 & 146/A/15) Joshi Technologies International Inc. vs. DDIT/DCIT Asst.Years –2009-10 to 2011-12 - 4 - 2007-08 and on the basis of the same, appropriate relief was requested to be granted to the assessee. However, in the order for A.Y. 2007-08, on which reference was placed by the applicant, there was no specific adjudication with respect to claim of additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 13. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, in order of adjudicate on this ground of appeal, the order is recalled for the limited purposes of hearing on this issue. 14. In the result, Ground No. 2 of the Miscellaneous Application is allowed. Ground No. 3: Mistake apparent from record in Ground No. 6.1 and 6.2 15. Vide this ground, it was submitted that vide Ground No. 6.2 it was submitted that for claiming DTAA benefit, submission of Tax Residency Certificate was not mandatory for this year. 16. While passing the order, we made a specific observation that the assessee only furnished a self-declaration and did not furnish any evidence to show that the consultants to whom payments were made tax resident of USA. In our view, we have taken a well thought of decision that mere filing on self-declaration, would not entitle to the assessee to claim benefits of the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Further, in the interest of justice, the Bench had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to MA Nos.98 to 101/Ahd/2024 (in ITA Nos. 738,767&739/Ahd/2014 & 146/A/15) Joshi Technologies International Inc. vs. DDIT/DCIT Asst.Years –2009-10 to 2011-12 - 5 - verify whether apart from a self-declaration, the assessee is able to furnish any other supporting document to prove the tax residency of the individuals to whom payments were made. 17. Accordingly, we find no merit in this ground raised by the applicant and this ground effectively amounts to review of the order and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 18. In the result, Ground No. 2.6 of the present Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. 19. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the applicant is partly allowed. M.A. No. 100/Ahd/2024 (arising out of ITA No. 739/Ahd/2014) In Ground No. 2: Mistakes apparent from record in Ground No. 1 20. In this present Miscellaneous Application, the applicant had submitted that while adjudicating Ground No.1, the Bench is restored the matter to the file of AO to grant relief to the assessee, in accordance with law. However, it was submitted that the Bench followed directions in disposing the grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 of assessee’s appeal, vide Para 14 of the said order. In the said order, it was mentioned that the similar ground was set-aside to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in light of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It was submitted that a similar direction also needs to be passed with respect to this MA Nos.98 to 101/Ahd/2024 (in ITA Nos. 738,767&739/Ahd/2014 & 146/A/15) Joshi Technologies International Inc. vs. DDIT/DCIT Asst.Years –2009-10 to 2011-12 - 6 - ground of appeal. This ground of appeal was raised by the Department as Ground No. 1 in ITA No. 789/Ahd/2014. 21. In light of the submission made by the assessee, we direct that Para 32 at Page 21 shall stand modified to the extent that “AO should adjudicate in the light of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India”. 22. In the result, Ground No. 2 of the Miscellaneous Application is allowed. Ground No. 3: Mistakes apparent from Ground No.2 23. Vide this ground, the applicant submitted that while adjudicating Ground No. 2 of the Department’s appeal with respect to “subscription charges” amounting to Rs. 7,71,554/-, the Hon’ble Bench mistakenly “allowed” the Department’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10. However, for A.Y. 2009-10 with respect to similar ground, Department’s appeal was “dismissed”. Accordingly, the applicant submitted that Ground No. 2 of the Department’s appeal with regards to subscription charges is also required to be “dismissed”. 24. On going through the facts of the case, we agree that Department’s Ground No. 2 is liable to be dismissed (in light of observations for A.Y. 2009-10) with respect to similar ground of appeal raised by the Department. 25. In the result, Para 58 of the order is directed to be modified to state that Department’s appeal is “dismissed” for A.Y. 2010-11. MA Nos.98 to 101/Ahd/2024 (in ITA Nos. 738,767&739/Ahd/2014 & 146/A/15) Joshi Technologies International Inc. vs. DDIT/DCIT Asst.Years –2009-10 to 2011-12 - 7 - 26. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the present Miscellaneous Application is allowed. 27. In the combined result, Miscellaneous Application of the assessee / applicant is allowed. M.A. No. 101/Ahd/2024 (arising out of ITA No. 146/Ahd/2015) In Ground No. 2: Mistakes apparent from record in Ground No. 1 28. In this present Miscellaneous Application, the applicant had submitted that while adjudicating Ground No.1, the Bench is restored the matter to the file of AO to grant relief to the assessee, in accordance with law. However, it was submitted that the Bench followed directions in disposing the grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 of assessee’s appeal, vide Para 14 of the said order. In the said order, it was mentioned that the similar ground was set-aside to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication “in light of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India”. It was submitted that a similar direction also needs to be passed with respect to this ground of appeal. This ground of appeal was raised by the Department as Ground No. 1 in ITA No. 789/Ahd/2014. 29. In light of the submission made by the assessee, we direct that Para 32 at Page 21 shall stand modified to the extent that “AO should adjudicate in the light of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India”. 30. In the result, Ground No. 2 of the Miscellaneous Application is allowed. MA Nos.98 to 101/Ahd/2024 (in ITA Nos. 738,767&739/Ahd/2014 & 146/A/15) Joshi Technologies International Inc. vs. DDIT/DCIT Asst.Years –2009-10 to 2011-12 - 8 - 31. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee / applicant is allowed. 32. In the combined result, M.A. No. 98/Ahd/2024 is allowed, M.A. No. 99/Ahd/2024 is partly allowed, M.A. No. 100/Ahd/2024 is allowed and M.A. No. 101/Ahd/2024 is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 24/01/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 24/01/2025 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजोकट / DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 24.01.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 24.01.2025 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 24.01.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 24.01.2025 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 24.01.2025 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 24.10.2025 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order………………………………… "