Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 1911 1993 SLD 1911 (1993) 200 ITR 577
Bombay High Court

MRS. SUJATA MANOHAR AND SRIKRISHNA, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Dubon Project Engg. P. Ltd.

v.

Central Board of Direct Taxes

Law:

Section:

Section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction - Royalties, etc., from certain foreign enterprises - Petitioner entered into an agreement with a foreign company for rendering technical services and made an application for approval of agreement under section 80-O - Board raised a number of queries and called for information but only after 11 months petitioner wrote to Board furnishing information called for - In meantime Board had rejected application as no information was forthcoming in spite of repeated opportunities - Whether Board should reconsider assessee's application for approval after giving opportunity to petitioner to furnish required information - Held, yes (case remanded) FACTS The petitioner was a company which carried on business as consulting engineering company in India and had expertised in the fields of civil, structural and soils engineering and other related disciplines. It entered into five agreements with a foreign company for rendering technical services. In respect of 5th agreement, the petitioner made an application on 26-9-1984 for the Board's approval. Along with the agreement the petitioner had forwarded a copy of the agreement certified by its managing director for approval under section 80-O to the Board. The Board raised a number of queries. After a lapse of 11 months, the petitioner furnished the information called for by the Board on 9-10-1986. The Board rejected the application by its order dated 24/31-1-1986 on the ground that no information was forthcoming in spite of repeated opportunities. On writ, the petitioner contended that information called for by the Board had already been supplied and the petitioner was willing to furnish a copy of the agreement certified by a Notary Public that was missing. HELD The application made by the petitioner dated 26-9-1984 should be reconsidered by the Board for approval under section 80-0, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner of furnishing an original of the concerned agreement or a copy certified by Notary Public of the agreement. In the result the order of the Board dated 24/31-1-1986 was set aside. K. Bhujle, K. Shivram and A.S. Dalvi for the Petitioner. Dr. V.…
🔒
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