INDIAN COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES CO PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions filed by the same petitioner raise the same question in respect of the two assessment years, namely, 1983-84 and 1984-85. W.P. No. 2073 of 1987 seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent dated December 15, 1986, and to direct the second respondent to grant relief to the petitioner under section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"), for the assessment year 1983-84. Similarly, W.P. No. 2072 of 1987 seeks to quash the order dated December 15, 1986, and to grant relief to the petitioner under section 80-O of the Act for the assessment year 1984-85. The common order dated December 15, 1986, is cryptic and is as follows :

(2.) THE petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Madras. THE petitioner-company has acquired experience in the erection of structural steel work and they are in possession of complete technical know-how relating to estimation checking of centre lines in foundations and certain preliminary works like setting, assembling and field-welding prior to the erection of structural steel work. For the assessment year 1983-84, the petitioner filed a return of income on June 30, 1983, showing an income of Rs. 4,23,963. THE first respondent determined the total income at Rs. 4,68,593. THE first respondent disallowed the claim of the petitioner under section 80-O of the Act on the ground that the agreement with the foreign company, Emirates Trading Agencies, had not been approved by the second respondent, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter called "the Board"). For the year 1984-85, the petitioner had returned an income of Rs. 6,71,340. THE first respondent determined the total income at Rs. 6,79,201. In this case also the claim under section 80-O of the Act had been disallowed on the ground that the agreement had not been approved by the Board.

(3.) THE Supreme Court also observed as follows (page 120) :