TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... njection platform facilities at Bombay High. The contract, inter alia, provided that the tax liabilities of the petitioner-company would be borne by respondent No. 3 and that if there was any change in Indian law which affected economically the position of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 would compensate it for the extra costs. The petitioner-company, in turn, entered into a sub-contract with an Italian concern known as "Micoperi S.P.A." which is dated December 5, 1982. This contract contained clauses similar to the clauses in the contract between the petitioner-company and respondent No. 3 (ONGC) relating to the payment of tax liabilities of Micoperi by the petitioner-company and any change in Indian law which might affect economically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch 15, 1991. The assessee-company had shown receipts from the contract with Messrs. Hyundai Heavy Industries (the petitioner) for the year under consideration. The tax liability pertaining to Messrs. Hyundai Heavy Industries inclusive of interest is to the tune of Rs. 14.88 crores. The tax liability of the assessee-company (i.e., Messrs. Micoperi, S. P. A.) is to be borne by Messrs. Hyundai Heavy Industries. As Messrs. Hyundai Heavy Industries is a non-resident company, the collection of tax at a later stage may create problems. The first respondent, therefore, requested the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) to withhold a sum of Rs. 10 to 12 crores from the payments which are still due to Messrs. Hyundai Heavy Industries. In other wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... International Inc. (No. 1) v. Union of India [1988] 173 ITR 155, delivered by one of us (Mrs. Sujata Manohar J.). In a similar situation, it was held that, under section 226(3), the Income-tax Officer can require, by a notice in writing, only such persons from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee or any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of the assessee, to pay to the Income-tax Officer such money. It is also pointed out by the petitioner-company that the Income-tax Department cannot take advantage of any agreement between the assessee and the petitioner-company or between the petitioner-company and respondent No. 3 under which the parties may have contracted in respect of the discharge of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cerned they had a right under section 44 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to realise the amount from B. In other words, the private agreement between the parties relating to discharge of tax liability would not affect the right of the income-tax authorities to recover the dues from the person who was liable under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. In the premises, any agreement entered into between the third respondent and the petitioner-company and between the petitioner-company and the assessee, pertaining to the discharge of the tax liability, cannot be availed of by the income-tax authorities. In the present case, there Is not even an agreement between the third respondent and the assessee, Micoperi S.P.A., for discharge of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|