9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Approval of agreement under section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961; Interpretation of sections 80HHB and 80-O; Application of Circular No. 253 dated April 30, 1979; Review petition regarding approval of agreement; Non-application of mind by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Analysis: The petitioners, engaged in the business of manufacturing air-conditioning equipment, entered into an agreement with a foreign company, seeking approval under section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Central Board of Direct Taxes declined approval citing the involvement of activities falling under section 80HHB related to foreign projects. The agreement involved the provision of technical know-how and services, with consideration for equipment and know-how. The Board's decision was based on a flawed understanding as it failed to properly ascertain the portion of consideration attributable to section 80-O income. The Circular No. 253 dated April 30, 1979, allows for approval of composite agreements with suitable disallowance for non-qualifying services, ensuring exemption for qualifying services under section 80-O. The Supreme Court's decision in Continental Construction Ltd. v. CIT supports the Board's detailed role in approving exemptions under section 80-O. The Court emphasized the Board's authority to assess agreements from all relevant angles concerning deductions under section 80-O. However, the Assessing Officer retains the responsibility to ensure the claimed deductions align with the approved basis. In this case, the Board's decision lacked proper application of relevant provisions and circulars, leading to the dismissal of the petitioners' application for approval under section 80-O. The subsequent review petition was also dismissed by the Board without considering the possibility of any part of the consideration falling under section 80-O. The Board's failure to apply its mind to the agreement's details and the provisions of law resulted in erroneous decisions. Consequently, both orders were set aside, and the petitioners' application was referred back to the Central Board of Direct Taxes for reevaluation. The Board was directed to reconsider the application in line with the court's judgment, Circular No. 253 dated April 30, 1979, and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Continental Construction Ltd. case. The court ordered the expeditious disposal of the application within ten weeks from the date of the order. In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of a thorough assessment by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in approving agreements under section 80-O, ensuring proper consideration of relevant provisions and circulars to determine the eligibility for deductions. The court's decision emphasizes the need for meticulous evaluation to prevent errors in granting or denying exemptions under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
|
