Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)Eastman Consultants P. Ltd. vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes And ... on 13 February, 1981
25. On the basis of the aforesaid facts the assessee claimed exemption under Section 80-O on the ground that it was providing "information" which was imparted by means of conveying the names of suitable candidates to the foreign employers. On the matter travelling to the Hon'ble High Court, Their Lordships held that "information" provided by the assessee could not be said to partake of the
nature of "industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, experience or skill" within the meaning of Section 80-O. It was further held that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions laid down in the second limb that the industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, experience or skill must be made available for "use outside India". Their Lordships further observed that the fact that the selected candidates went abroad and worked outside India was not relevant because that work had nothing to do with the assessee's work in India.
Continental Construction Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central-1 on 15 January, 1992
(ii) Continental Construction Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 195 ITR 81 (SC);
Searle (India) Ltd. vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes And ... on 4 October, 1982
In dealing with the various decisions relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative, in the case of Searle (India) Ltd. v. CBDT (supra) there was an agreement between the assessee-company and the foreign company which imported psyllium husk from India. The assessee was required to carry out certain tests in its laboratory in India and forward to the foreign company, the results of those tests with a certificate that each lot of psyllium husk conformed to the specifications of the foreign company. The agreement provided that the foreign company would pay to the assessee 50 dollars for each lot of psyllium husk in respect of which the assessee conducted the quality tests. The assessee applied to the CBDT for approval of the agreement under Section 80-O and which was rejected by the CBDT on the ground that the technical service was not rendered outside India. A single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the assessee on the ground that the work was done by the assessee in India. On appeal. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that under the agreement what was rendered by the assessee was more or less a technical service since the assessee merely tested the samples and gave the results-to the foreign company.
Oberoi Hotels (India) P. Ltd. vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes And Others on 29 May, 1981
In the case of CBDT & Am: v. Obeioi Hotels (P) Ltd. (supra) Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Obeioi Hotels (India) (P) Ltd. v. CBDT (1982) 135 ITR 257 (Del), the relevant facts being that there was an agreement between Oberoi Hotels (India) (P) Ltd. and a Nepal company which owned and operated a hotel in Kathmandu. For ensuring better operational results and promotion of the business of its hotel the foreign enterprise desired that its operations be taken over by the respondent with effect from 1st Dec., 1969, on the terms and conditions. The CBDT did not grant approval under Section 80 0 and on a writ petition filed by the assessee the Delhi High Court quashed the order of non-approval under Section 80-O passed by the Board. The matter was thereafter taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which upheld the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. At p. 150 of the report, Their Lordships took into account the amendment to Section 80-O carried out by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991, when the words "technical or professional services" were inserted in place of the words "technical services'. It was held by Their Lordships that the amendment was of a clarificatory nature and the term "technical services" always included within it professional services as well. The following observations of Their Lordships at p. 150 of the report are relevant :
Section 80 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Income-Tax Officer vs Ashoka Betelnut Co. (P.) Ltd. on 5 September, 1984
15. The AO disallowed part of the expenses for non-business user which was also confirmed by the CIT(A). In appeal before us the learned counsel stated that the assessee is a company and in the case of a company there cannot be personal user. While relying on the decision ITO v. Ashoka Betelnut Co. (P) Ltd. (1985) 21 TTJ (Mad) 465 (TM) : (1984) 10 JTD 788 (Mad) (TM) the learned counsel stated that the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the CIT(A).
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Chitram And Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 5 December, 1990
16. We have considered the rival submissions. Whether the expenditure incurred on car maintenance, etc. could be disallowed in the case of the companies or not was considered by the Hon'ble Court in the case CIT v. Chitram & Co. (P) Ltd. (1991) 191 WR 96 (Mad). Respectfully following the same we hold that the disallowance out of car expenses in the case of companies was Justified. We also find that only l/6th disallowance has been made for non-business user. This cannot be considered to be excessive or unreasonable. Accordingly this ground of appeal is dismissed.
1