bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.189 OF 2009 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.190 OF 2009 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.193 OF 2009 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.495 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. Voltas International Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for appellant. Mr.P.S.Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate a/w. N.Thakkar i/b. Mulla & Mulla for respondent. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE : 11TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The following substantial questions of law sought to be raised in the ABOVE appeals. 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in holding that the aggregate amount of income of Rs. 34,56,671/- of the assessee company from its three joint ventures, received by it as the fixed percentage of the annual profit of the joint venture every year was eligible for deduction u/s.80.O of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee has admitted that it had no role to play in this joint venture after the initial set up of the joint venture ? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in holding that the income earned by the assessee company from its joint ventures was eligible for deduction u/s.80-O because the relevant agreements were approved without appreciating the fact that such approval was only a precondition of the provisions of section 80-O as it stood at the relevant time and such approval itself do not automatically decide the nature of the receipts in balance of any concrete proof for providing technical input in tangible form ? 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was correct in applying the ratio of the decision of the Delhi High Court reported in 256 ITR 761(Del) in the case of Raunaw International Ltd. Vs. UOI & Anr. since the facts are not identical and further, in that case the core issue was the rejection of application for approval of the agreement for the purpose of section 80-O by the Prescribed Authority whereas the issue in this case is whether the foreign income of the assessee company is of the nature which will qualify for deduction u/s.80-O of the I.T.Act as for technical services ? 3. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact in paragraph No.9, which reads as under: 13.3. The second objection of the revenue that no evidence has been provided by the assessee that it actually rendered certain technical services. The assessee has in fact provided copies of the technical service agreement entered into by the assessee company with the foreign enterprises and it is an admitted fact that its technical service agreements have been approved by the CBDT/Chief CIT. While so it is not proper to doubt the genuineness of these agreements and hold that the assessee has received remuneration without rendering of any service whatsoever. As rightly pointed out by Shri.Pardiwalla, even a promise to render services at a future date would entitle the assessee for deduction u/s.80.O in view of the specific wordings in the section. Thus we allow ground 1(b) of the assessee. 4. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding about genuineness of the agreements and technical service agreements and the approval of the said agreements by the CBDT/Chief CIT. In this view f the matter, the Tribunal has taken a correct view that the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s.80.O of the Act. No case is is made out to take contrary view. No perversity in the impugned order could be demonstrated by the appellant. Consequently, the appeals stand dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)