9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w and services by the petitioner to the Negeri Sembilan Development Corporation of the Government of Malaysia. Three different agreements in respect of ; (1) know-how, (2) investment, and (3) service were entered into with the Corporation on November 24, 1972. Under the know-how agreement, the petitioner was to provide and make available to the Corporation all the processes, formulae, knowledge and technical know-how developed by the petitioner for establishment of organisation, erection and installation of sugarcane plantations and sugar factory and production of sugar at the factory. The petitioner was to receive consideration in fully paid up equity shares of the face value of M$ 15,00,000 of the new company to be formed for the purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was claimed by the petitioner. The copies of the agreements were also forwarded and the approval was sought in respect of both the agreements for the assessment year 1974-75 and subsequent assessment years. The petitioner thereafter sent several reminders and ultimately received the approval only in respect of the service agreement on February 25, 1976. The petitioner filed the return of income for the assessment year 1975-76 and during the proceedings for completion of the assessment of that year claimed the amount of MS 15,00,000 as capital receipts not liable to income-tax. The ITO took the view that the said amount was a trading receipt and, therefore, liable to tax. The petitioner thereupon by letter dated October 12, 1978, requeste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to claim relief under s. 80-O of the I.T. Act. On behalf of the respondents, return dated August 12, 1981, sworn by Jaspalsingh, ITO, is filed to resist the reliefs sought by the petitioner. Shri Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the Bombay Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the petition. Shri Joshi urged that the office of respondent No. 1 is at New Delhi and no part of the cause of action has arisen within the limits of the Bombay Court and, therefore, the filing of the petition in this court was not proper. In my judgment, it is not necessary to examine this plea in great detail for the reason that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ITO declined to treat the receipt as a capital receipt, but, in my judgment, it would not be appropriate to defeat the petition on the ground of delay because, on merits, the petitioner has got a good case. Shri Mehta, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, submitted that while making an application on August 3, 1973, for grant of approval to respondent No. 1, a mistake occurred in seeking the approval only in respect of the service agreement instead of both the service agreement and the know-how agreement. Shri Mehta submits that when the particulars were furnished by the petitioner in the pro forma as demanded by respondent No. 1 in January, 1974, the petitioner made it crystal clear that the approval was required bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
