| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1975 SLG 666 1975 SLD 666 (1975) 100 ITR 637 |
WRIT PETITION Nos. 2986 AND 2987 OF 1971, JUNE 11, 1973
GOPAL RAO EKBOTE, C.J. AND CHENNAKESAV REDDY, J.
Y.V. Anjaneyulu for the Petitioner. P. Rama Rao for the
Respondent
Barium Chemicals Ltd.
v.
Income Tax Officer
Law:
Section:
Section 161 read with sections 166 and 174 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Representative assessee - Liability of - Assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 - Whether section 166 does not indicate that law confers a discretion or option upon ITO to choose, either initially or subsequent to initiation of proceedings, as to whether he wants to assess and recover tax from non-resident or its agent - Held, yes - Whether even if proceedings of assessment had been commenced as against non-resident principal, still they can be continued as against agent of non-resident principal or, simultaneously, action for assessment and recovery of tax can be taken both against non-resident principal as well as its agent - Held, yes - Whether any omission or failure on part of ITO to take immediate proceedings under section 174 would absolve on agent of non-resident of its liability to be assessed to tax - Held, no II Section 174 read with section 161 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment of person leaving India - Assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 - Whether any omission or failure on part of ITO to take immediate proceedings under section 174 would absolve agent of non-resident of its liability to be assessed to tax - Held, no Words and phrases : 'Either' and 'or' used in section 166 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 FACTS The petitioner-company entered into an agreement with 'CT' of the United Kingdom to rectify certain defects in the plant and machinery supplied to the petitioner by M of the United Kingdom, and also to supply designs, drawings and other technical know-how, connected with the manufacture of Barium salts. Pursuant to the abovesaid agreement, the non-resident firm supplied necessary designs and drawings, etc. and also sent one of its partners, D for supervising the erection of the plant and machinery. D was in India for about three months. The ITO, felt that some income, profits and gains assessable had accrued or arisen to the non-resident firm and, therefore, it was liable to be assessed under the Act. The ITO passed order treating the petitioner Indian company, as agent of non-resident firm. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioner brought to theβ¦
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492