Held:

“We have also examined the terms of the agreement between the respondent/ assessee and IMG Canada. It is clear that what has been paid for by the respondent / assessee is the right of title sponsorship and the benefits connected therewith, which have been set out in the Schedule to the said agreement and to which we have already referred to above …. What the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to note was that there was no transfer of a copyright or the right to use the copyright flowing from IMG Canada to the respondent / assessee and, therefore, any payment made by the respondent/ assessee to IMG Canada would not fall within Article 13(3)(c) of the said DTAA. The reference in Article 13(3)(c) is to “any copyright” and it is not a reference to “any right”. 9. In these circumstances, we feel that the findings of fact and law and the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are correct.”

(Click here for Analysis)

(Click here for Judgment )

2.  ITA 1264/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - versus – ASHWANI GUPTA - Delhi High Court Denial of Cross Examination/Confrontation of IIIRD Party back Material: Whether irregularity or FATAL? In Ashwani Gupta case:

Held:

“In view of the foregoing circumstances, we feel that no interference with the impugned order is called for. The Tribunal has correctly understood the law and applied it to the facts of the case. Once there is a violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as seized material is not provided to an assessee nor is cross-examination of the person on whose statement the Assessing Officer relies upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to a denial of opportunity and, consequently, would be fatal to the proceedings. Following the approach adopted by us in SMC Share Brokers (supra), we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration.”

(Click here for Judgment )