Correa Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs P.S. Sankaran and others

T.D. Sugla, J.—The petitioner company has, by this petitions under article 226 of the constitution of India, challenged the orders dated April 17, 1985, and March 4, 1986, passed by the central Board of Direct Taxes rejecting the petitioner''s application for recognition u/s 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Admittedly, there is no formal agreement between the petitioner company and the Government of Iraq with regard to rendering of technical services, the agreement is stated to be recorded in the form of a letter dated January 25, 1983, written by the petitioner-company to the Advisor to the mayor. Amagnet A 1 Asimah, Baghdad, Iraq, exhibit A to the petition. Representation dated April 26, 1982, was made to the Central Board of Direct Taxes by the chartered accountants of the petitioner company for the approval of the agreement u/s 80-O, whereafter, some correspondence was exchanged between the Board and the petitioner-company. Ultimately, by its letter dated April 17, 1985, the Board refused to approve the agreement observing that the lecture tour can hardly be taken to be amounting to rendering of technical services and that too when the period of the tour is not covered by any agreement. Further representations were made on behalf of the petitioner-company but its letter dated March 4, 1986, the Board expressed its inability to review its earlier order for the reason that no new facts are placed before it to warrant reconsideration.

It appears that the board rejected the petitioner''s prayer for approval primarily on the ground that Shri Correa had visited Baghdad in November 1981, by way of lecture tour. There is no whisper in the correspondence/representations that visit to Bhagdadwas a lecture tour. On the order hand, there is an indication in the letter/agreement dated January 25, 1983, that the visit was for a government project at Bhagdad in connection with technical discussion were held by Shri Correa with other architects and engineers and consultants of the foreign Government.

It the circumstances, while it is not a case where this court would like to interfere in its writ jurisdiction, it is considered fair and in the interest of justice that the petition is withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to make a further representation to the Board its stand clearly which is to be considered by the Board afresh according to law.

In view of the above observation. Shri Dwarkadas, learned counsel for the petitioner, seek permission to withdraw the petition. Permission granted. The petition accordingly stands disposed of as withdrawn. No order as to cost.