TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (10) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow fees payable under the collaboration agreement between the petitioner-company and its collaborators in West Germany and Austria. Further, to direct the respondent, the XIIth Income-tax Officer, Circle-I, Bangalore, from enforcing the demand made as per Annexs. "D" and "D1" to the petition. The respondent has entered appearance and filed his objections. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition in regard to the prayers, under section 392 of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). To appreciate the arguments advanced on both the sides it is necessary to set out some of the facts which are not in dispute. The petitioner-company was ordered to be wound up under sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eted as the matter dealt with in that paragraph has been disposed of otherwise earlier in the course of this order. Paragraph 5 of Annexure 'B' shall be numbered as paragraph 4" Long after the sanction of the scheme, Annexs. "D" and "D1" have been issued by the respondent to the petitioner herein as agent of M/s. Accumulatoren Fabric and M/s. Samperit, Austria, respectively, demanding certain amounts of income-tax due by the said firms for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 (in respect of the second-mentioned company for assessment year 1969-70 only). It is essential to state that Annexs. D and D1 relate to assessments already concluded and have reached a finality in the composite orders made by the Commissioner of Income-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dly, he has laid emphasis on the opening sentence of the paragraph which has been earlier set out. Therefore, his argument that the court sanctioned the scheme noticing that the company was not liable to pay income-tax, and, as such, such demands made at Annexs. D and D1 are matters arising out of the working of the sanctioned scheme. Alternatively, he has argued that the company is entitled to a declaration and injunction as prayed for, as the demand is made contrary to the provisions of section 231 of the I.T. Act. As pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the demand of tax is not in relation to the liability of the company in regard to its income. The demands relate to the foreign collaborators who have be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., because the company is yet to pay off its creditors and be free of the liquidation proceedings. That, as a fact, may be so. But the question is whether the jurisdiction under section 392 to issue directions should cover matters which fall clearly outside the working of the scheme sanctioned by the court for reconstruction. As already pointed out, the liability under Annexs. D and Dl is the liability of the foreign collaborators. If under the provisions of the I.T. Act the assessments concluded on the foreign collaborators for the relevant assessment years have become final, it will be too far fetched to depend on para. IV, Part B, of the scheme, to consider it as the liability of the company itself, when it has only acted as agents of oth....