2010 (3) TMI 170

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is as follows "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal, "C" Bench, Mumbai, has erred in not considering that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80-O since he is a professional and is providing professional service and, therefore, it cannot be said that he was owning some intellectual property and earning income through use/exploitation of such intellectual property in view of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of NTPS?" 2. The assessee is an architect. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2003-04, he received professional fees of Rs. 3.15 crores including an amount of Rs. 2.43 crores, which was received in convertible foreign exchange from Goody, Clancy....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... project. In the present case, as the facts before the court would show that it has not been disputed that the assessee did as a matter of fact provide the designs. Nor is it disputed that the designs provided by the assessee were used outside India. Moreover, it is an admitted position that income in convertible foreign exchange was received by the assessee in India. 4. Section 80-O, inter alia, contains the following requirements: (i) the gross total income of the assessee, being an Indian company or a person resident in India must include any income received by the assessee from the Government of a foreign state or a foreign enterprise; (ii) the income must be received in consideration of the use outside India of any patent, invention....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ign exchange in consideration for the use outside India of certain categories of intellectual property, namely, patents, inventions, designs or registered trademarks. The fact that the assessee supplied designs is not in dispute. 6. From the question of law that has been framed by the Revenue, it appears that the contention is that the assessee was providing professional services and could not be regarded as the owner of intellectual property. There is no merit in the submission. The income in respect of which a deduction is claimed under section 80-O was not income, generally speaking, received for rendering professional services outside India. The income which was received was specifically in consideration for use outside India of the ....