9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (2) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case and on a proper construction of the agreement dated 31st December, 1960, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment to M/s. RIG by way of royalty (Rs. 62,600) and tile expenditure incurred by the assessee for payment of remuneration and travelling expenses for the German technicians were items of revenue expenditure deductible in computing the assessee's income from business ?" The statement of the case relates to the assessment year 1962-63, the relevant previous year being the calendar year 1961. The assessee is a company. It is engaged in the manufacture, inter alia, of low and high tension porcelain insulators. Under the aforesaid agreement M/s. Roeanthal Isoletoren Gesellschaft (hereinafter referred to as " RI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e agreement have not been found nor stated by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, they rightly submitted that the aforesaid questions cannot be answered by us. We are, therefore, not recording the arguments made and the cause cited at the Bar. It is not possible nor advisable to catalogue the relevant facts relating to art. 3 of the agreement. Therefore, we will indicate only one of those relevant facts so that the Tribunal may appreciate our observations. Article 3 deals with the technical " know-how". The main paragraph of art. 3 provides that RIG shall give to the assessee the technical " know-how " as defined therein for an economical manufacture of those products by the assessee. The main paragraph also provides that RIG shall ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As stated earlier, the relevant facts relating to art. 3 have not been found nor stated by the Tribunal. The questions, therefore, cannot be answered by us and this reference is disposed of without answering them. As the Tribunal has failed to decide the issues, Mr. B. L. Pal, learned counsel for the revenue, submits that by following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1970] 78 ITR 474, we should direct the Tribunal to take additional evidence on those issues while disposing of the appeal under s. 260(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Mr. Pranab Pal, the learned counsel for the assessee, faintly submits that we should not give any such direction, but we are unable to accept it in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
