Case Details

Citation(s)
1979 SLG 1269 1979 SLD 1269 (1979) 120 ITR 887
Calcutta High Court
S.C. DEB AND SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA, JJ. IT REFERENCE No. 520 OF 1974 APRIL 25, 1978
S.C. DEB AND SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA, JJ.
Dr. D. Pal, R.N. Bajoria and S.K. Bagaria for the Appellant. Ajit Sengupta and P. Majumdar for the
Respondent

Biyani and Sons (P.) Ltd.

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

Section 9, read with section 163(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income - Deemed to accrue or arise in India - In terms of agreement, 'IE' i.e. a non resident appointed assessee-company as its agent for certain Indian territories for mediating export transactions of products manufactured by it abroad and to be sold in Indian territories - ITO held that there was a business connection between assessee-company and 'IE' and from said business connection income arose or accrued to non-resident - He, accordingly, passed an order under section 163(1) treating assessee-company as agent of 'IE' - AAC affirmed ITO's findings - On appeal before Tribunal, assessee contended that 'IE' was a non resident broker and, therefore, under proviso to section 163(1) assessee could not be treated as agent of 'IE' - Tribunal rejected assessee's contention on ground that no evidence was adduced by assessee to show that 'IE' was a non resident broker - On instant reference, it was seen from terms of agreement that there was not only a business connection between assessee-company and 'IE' but also from such business connection business income had directly or indirectly accrued to said non-resident ('IE')) in India - Agreement further should that assessee-company was employed by said non-resident as its 'agent' within meaning of section 163(1) - Whether, in aforesaid circumstances, Tribunal was right in holding that 'IE', a non resident with which assessee had dealings, was not a non-resident broker and therefore assessee was liable to be treated as agent of said non-resident - Held, yes FACTS In terms of an agreement, 'IE' a non-resident appointed the assessee-company as its agent for certain Indian territories for mediating export transactions of its products manufactured abroad and to be sold in those territories. The ITO held that there was a business connection between the assessee-company and 'IE' and from the said business connection the income arose or accrued to the non-resident. He, accordingly, attributed that part of the business income which accrued in India and was reasonably attributable to the said operation carried out in India and passed an order under section 163(1)…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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