9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... point arises for consideration, viz., whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the rectification application under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that it was misconceived and not maintainable. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: On March 18, 1959, a double taxation avoidance agreement was entered into between the Government of India and the Federa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into agreements with three companies of the Federal Republic of Germany on January 29, 1982, May 10, 1984 and during the financial year 1984-85. The assessee-company also made part payments towards fees to the said companies for technical services rendered. The payments were made during the financial years 1984-85 and 1985-86 relevant to the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87. The assessee claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that the decision of the Tribunal dated June 17, 1998, has never been challenged by the Department. However, on January 22, 1999, the Department moved a rectification application under section 254(2) before the Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that there was a mistake apparent from the record. By the impugned order dated May 24, 1999, the Tribunal rejected the said miscellaneous application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he record as it had already ruled in its decision dated June 17, 1998, that the amendment in the treaty would not apply to contracts executed before July 10, 1985. We have gone through the facts of this 'case. We have seen the decision of the Tribunal dated June 17, 1998. The said decision clearly lays down that the amendment will not apply to contracts executed before July 10, 1985. The decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
