9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... haracter of the relationship from the agreement would have to be gathered from reading the document as a whole. This Court in case of Daruvala Bros. (P). Ltd. Vs. CIT [1970 (1) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]had found that the agreement made between the parties, was of sole distribution and the agent was acting on his behalf and not on behalf of the principal. In that background, it was held that the agreement in question was not one of agency, though the document may have used such term to describe the relationship between the two sides. No error in view of the tribunal. - decided against revenue - Income Tax Appeal No. 1798 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2019 - AKIL KURESHI SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the parties and the contract was on principal to principal basis and therefore section 28(ii)(c) would not apply. In further Appeal by the revenue, the tribunal confirmed the view of the CIT Appeals, interalia holding that the entire source of the income was terminated by virtue of the said agreement and that in view of the fact that there was no principal to agent relationship, section 28(ii)(c) will not apply. 4. It is not disputed that upon termination of the contract, the assessee's entire business of soliciting freight on behalf of the US based company came to be terminated. It may be that assessee had, other business. Insofar as the question of taxing the receipts arising out of the contract terminating the very source of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rue character of the relationship from the agreement would have to be gathered from reading the document as a whole. This Court in case of Daruvala Bros. (P). Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Bombay, reported in (1971) 80 ITR 213 had found that the agreement made between the parties, was of sole distribution and the agent was acting on his behalf and not on behalf of the principal. In that background, it was held that the agreement in question was not one of agency, though the document may have used such term to describe the relationship between the two sides. 6. In such circumstances we do not find any error in view of the tribunal. No question of law arises. The Appeal is dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
