9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (6) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred to as the petitioner ") is a private limited company which is a party to an agreement between itself and a company known as Toyo Engineering India Ltd., the latter being a company organised and existing under the laws of India. It has its registered office at United Commercial Bank Building on Parliament Street at New Delhi. As its name itself indicates, it is an Indian company and there ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-tax Act shall be deducted while computing the total income of the assessee mentioned in the said section. This application made by the petitioner was rejected by the first respondent-Board's Foreign Tax Division by its order dated January 5, 1982, which is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition under article 226 of the Constitution. The first respondent-Board rejected the application o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or a foreign enterprise some patent invention, secret formula, etc., or some services. Thirdly, in consideration of making available to the foreign State or foreign enterprise the invention, patent, etc., or the services, payment must be received by the assessee from the Government of a foreign State or a foreign enterprise. Section 80-0 itself does not mention that the agreement to render service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specifically stated as follows : " The contract price to be paid by TEIL to the contractor under this contract is attached herewith." It is clear that it is TEIL which used to pay the contract price as mentioned in article 3. The contract price and terms of payment forming part of the agreement state: "The price to be paid by TEIL to the contractor for the work under the contract shall be the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce placed by Mr. Ashar on the judgment of Pratap J., in Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. v. CBDT [1986] 159 ITR 162 (Bom) (Writ Petition No. 1044 of 1981 decided on 10th June, 1985) is, in my opinion, misplaced. On the facts of this case, it is abundantly clear that the most important requirement of section 80-0 of the Income-tax Act is not satisfied at all. In the result, the petition must fail. Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
