Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Appropriate Authority, while acting under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was required to consider the earlier private agreements accompanying Form 37-I and not confine itself only to the proforma agreement filed in Form 37-I.
Analysis: The scheme of sections 269UC, 269UD and 269UK of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as explained in the earlier decisions referred to in the judgment, shows that Form 37-I is the statutory statement on which the Authority acts, but it does not follow that the Authority is barred from looking at earlier agreements where they are relevant and accompany the statutory form. The reasoning in the earlier Delhi decision was treated as still supporting the proposition that a proforma agreement may be examined along with the prior agreement, and the Court found that the Authority had erred in proceeding on the assumption that such material could not be considered.
Conclusion: The objection that the earlier agreements could not be looked into was rejected, and the Authority was directed to reconsider the matter after taking the agreements into account.
Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Chapter XX-C, the Appropriate Authority is entitled to consider relevant prior agreements accompanying Form 37-I, and it cannot decline jurisdiction on the mistaken footing that only the statutory proforma agreement is relevant.