The court emphasized the need for consideration of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and found that the Tribunal had failed to exercise its jurisdiction in ordering remand without specifying fresh documents.

This batch of Tax Case (Appeals), filed at the instance of the assessee as against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, were admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:

T.C.(A)Nos.361 to 370 & 372 to 389 of 2012:

"1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has exercised its power of remand judiciously and in accordance with law?

2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in remanding the matters back to the file of the AO even when no new materials had been presented before it and all materials were placed before the lower authorities?

3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in remanding the matters back to the AO without giving specific directions?"

T.C.(A)Nos.223 to 250 of 2013:

"1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in remanding the matter back to the assessing officer when there was no factual dispute between the parties and the CIT(A) had given a conclusive order on the entire factual matrix of the case?

2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in not recording a finding that the appellant had produced fresh material, but still remanding the appellant's cases along with the other assessees who had produced fresh material?

3. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in not deciding issues other than reinsurance premium, on which, according to the impugned order itself, there are no fresh materials produced?

4. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in remanding the matter back to the assessing officer without recording a finding on what materials were produced freshly before it?"

2. Since the issues raised in all the assessees' appeals are identical, particularly on the question of remand, it is suffice to refer the said issue by a common judgment. The common fact in all these cases is that the assessees are all insurance companies. Among the various issues raised in the course of re-assessment proceedings including the validity of such reopening, the Assessing Officer disallowed the reinsurance premium paid to Non-Resident Reinsurers on the ground that the taxes had not been withheld at source. Aggrieved by the same, the assessees canvassed this issue apart from various other issues before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by preferring appeals. On the question of TDS on the re-insurance premium paid to Non-Resident Reinsurers, the Commissioner rejected the contention of the assessees and confirmed the re-assessment proceedings. However, the Commissioner granted certain relief, which resulted in filing of appeals by the Revenue as well as by the assessees before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

3. There were in all 56 appeals, partly by the assessee and partly by the Revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal pointed out that the issue raised in the appeals related to disallowance of re-insurance premium paid to Non-Resident Reinsurers by the assessees. There was also a common question as regards treating the Unexpired Premium Reserve as income. In the appeals pertaining to M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., these two issues alone arose. However, in the case of M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, apart from the above issues, there were issues like disallowance of depreciation, unexplained expenditure, unexplained investment, profit on sale of investment, etc. In the case of United India Insurance Company, there were other grounds also raised on the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

4. After referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Private Limited V. Commissioner of Income-tax in Civil Appeal Nos.7541-7542 of 2010 dated 9.9.2010, wherein the Apex Court had considered the liability as regards the remittance to the non-resident by an Indian Company, the Tribunal held that the issue as regards the payment of rein