bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.3946 OF 2008 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. Office objections are overruled. Registry is directed to register the appeal. At the request of learned Counsel for appellant appeal is taken up for hearing on admission. 2. The Revenue has raised four substantial questions of law, out of which, three questions revolve around first question. First question reads as under: a) 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 ? 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 appeal on first three questions are liable to be rejected. 5. So far as last question is concerned, the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Badridas Gauridu (P) Ltd. 261 ITR 256. The learned Counsel for the appellant could not distinguish the said judgment. The Tribunal has rightly relied on the same. In this view of the matter, the appeal is without any substance. Hence, the same stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law. No order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)