9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 80-0 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Timing of Central Government approval for the agreement with the foreign company. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Section 80-0 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 80-0 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971. The section provided for a deduction in respect of royalties, etc., received from foreign companies under an agreement approved by the Central Government before the 1st of October of the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal held that the requirement for approval by the Central Government before the 1st of October was merely directory and not mandatory, thus allowing the assessee to claim relief even though the approval was granted after the specified date. The Tribunal's interpretation was based on the premise that the amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971 was clarificatory and declaratory of the law as it stood prior to the amendment. 2. Timing of Central Government approval for the agreement with the foreign company: The assessee had applied for the approval on 22nd August 1969, but the Central Government granted the approval on 21st May 1971, with effect from the assessment year 1969-70. The ITO and the AAC denied the relief under Section 80-0, citing that the approval was not accorded before the 1st of October 1969, making the assessee ineligible for the relief. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, stating that the timing of the approval was not mandatory but directory. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, emphasizing that the assessee could not compel the Central Government to grant approval by a specific date and that the approval granted with retrospective effect should be considered sufficient compliance with the statutory provision. The High Court further elaborated that the object of Section 80-0 was to provide relief to the assessee and that the approval requirement was to ensure that the agreements generating income were genuine and not misused. The Court noted that the strict interpretation of fiscal laws should not defeat the purpose of the provision, which was to afford relief to the assessee. The Court also referred to various legal principles and precedents, including the observations from Craies on Statute Law and Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, to support its conclusion that the provision regarding the timing of the approval was directory. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to treat the approval requirement as directory was correct and that the assessee was entitled to the relief under Section 80-0. The Court answered both the referred questions in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the subsequent amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971 was clarificatory and that the assessee had fulfilled the necessary conditions for the relief. In summary, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's interpretation of Section 80-0, allowing the assessee to claim relief despite the Central Government's approval being granted after the specified date, as long as the approval was effective from the relevant assessment year. The judgment emphasized the purpose of the provision and the practical difficulties faced by the assessee in obtaining timely approval from the government.
|
