The foreign companypany, however, repudiated its liability to pay the tax.
The Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the question did number arise from the order of the Tribunal.
Under a deed of agreement dated January 31, 1947, made with the appellant the Aluminium Laboratories Ltd., Montreal, Canada, a foreign companypany, having laboratories and research facilities in Canada and the United Kingdom agreed in companysideration of an annual retainer fee to provide regularly and diligently technical and engineering informations, advice and service, etc.,
Following the decision in Civil Appeals Nos.
to the appellant on the basis of research carried on in their laboratories.
1962 AIR SC 1619 The Judgment was delivered by S. K. DAS J. K. DAS J. for the This is an appeal with special leave from an order dated May 29, 1956, passed by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal Calcutta Bench , Calcutta, disallowing the assessees claim for deducting a sum of Rs.
were essential for the maintenance of the standard of its products on a par with those of other companypetitors in the field.
Fo There was an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who held that though the sums payable to the foreign companypany were chargeable to income tax, the liability to deduct and pay tax under section 18 3A and 18 3B arose number when the sums were credited to the account of the foreign companypany but at the time of actual physical payment.
1, 24, 199 odd paid to Government as an extra expenditure incurred in its business and claimed a deduction in respect thereof under section 10 2 xv of the Act in the assessment proceedings for the year 1954 55.
Thereupon, as a matter of companymercial accidence and necessity the appellant treated the sum of Rs.
An appeal was then taken to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal and by the order companyplained of, namely, the order dated May 29, 1956, the Tribunal under section 66 1 of the Act to make a reference to the High Court on the question as to whether the sum of Rs.
As a matter of fact this appeal was heard along with Civil Appeals Nos.
The remuneration which the foreign companypany had to be paid was payable at Montreal in Canadian dollars.
However, the appellant simultaneously took up the matter with the foreign companypany and requested the companypany to reimburse the appellant in the matter of the tax paid on behalf of the foreign companypany.
The case of the appellant was that such technical and engineering informations, etc.,
There was an unsuccessful appeal to the Appellate Assistance Commissioner.
170 172 of 1959 and full arguments were heard from companynsel for both sides.
The appell The Income tax Officer companycerned disallowed the claim.
1, 24, 199.3 nP. incurred by the appellant during the relevant accounting year was deductible under section 10 2 xv of the Act.
On appeals against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, both by the appellant and the Income tax Officer the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, held against the appellant on both the points and restored the order of the Income tax Officer.
In companysequence of the said decision and to save itself from the companysequences of a drastic recovery proceeding the appellant paid the amount on or about April 16, 1953.
1, 24, 199 odd under the provisions of section 10 2 xv of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922.
He therefore, set aside the order of the Income tax Officer.
170 172 of 1959 we hold that special leave to appeal from the decision of the Tribunal dated May 29, 1956, was number properly granted in this case and the appellant is number entitled to ask us to exercise our power under article 136 of the companystitution when it did number move against the subsequent orders of the Board and the High Court.The assessee, appellant before us, is a public limited companypany with its registered office in Calcutta.
and production of various aluminium or alloy products.
Its principal business is the manufacture of aluminium ingots, sheets circles, aluminium alloys, etc.,
