Dr. K.J. Thaker, J. - (1.) All these appeals have raised common substantial questions of law, therefore, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, individual appeal relates to different assessment years and different dates of order of Tribunal, therefore, such details are given in the following chart. JUDGEMENT_136_LAWS(ALL)12_2016_1.html
(2.) Income Tax Appeal (hereinafter referred to as ' ITA') No. 503 of 2008 was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of case the ITAT was legally justified in holding that fee for technical service of 29,40,64, 000/- and royalty payment of 18,55,24,000/- as revenue expenditure in spite of the fact that they were of enduring nature. (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of case, ITAT has erred in law by ignoring the fact that limited right to use know how that yields enduring benefits cannot be termed as revenue expenditure. (3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of case, the ITAT was right in holding non existence of ownership rights for manufacturing activities, making payments of technical know how, and revenue paid for manufacturing activities can be termed as revenue in nature.
(3.) In all the remaining matters, Tribunal has followed its earlier decision dated 16.5.2008 and therefore, all the subsequent appeals were connected with leading ITA No.503 of 2008, hence, facts have been taken for convenience from Income ITA No.503 of 2008. Same questions of law are involved in all the other matters and hence not reproduced.;