9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. Apart from this, it is also noted in paragraph 7 of the impugned order that assessee could not remit even this amount of USD 22,500 to the parent Company because of an embargo placed by the Government. Therefore, there is no factual basis for the submission made by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the assessee was, on the one hand, receiving USD 22,500 from the Joint Venture Companie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue pointed out that the assessee was collecting franchise fee from Joint Venture Companies @ USD 45,000 under the Master Licence Agreement with its parent company McDonald s Corporation USA. 2. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that earlier the assessee was collecting the franchise fee of USD 45,000 and was remitting the same to its parent company. But, in the y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended that the Tribunal as also the CIT (A) have returned findings of fact that the assessee/respondent was only receiving USD 22,500 from the Joint Venture Companies and not USD 45,000, as contended by the Revenue. 4. We have examined the impugned order as also the order passed by the CIT (A) and the Assessing Officer. We note that the Tribunal which is the final fact finding authority in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the modification of the Franchisee agreement could be only as agreed upon. In this regard we find that the term duly executed in case of implies that the same is executed by an officer of Franchiser or its Franchiser director and in case of Franchisee executed by the Franchisee. The communication contained at page 68, in our opinion, confirmed to both the conditions because the same has been add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
