TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (8) TMI 27
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the High Court of Delhi in, a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which will be hereinafter referred to as " the Act ". The controversy in these appeals relates to the assessment of the assessee-appellant for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. The assessee was taxed as a non-resident. The assessee is a company incorporated on January 17, 1945, as a public c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so long as the selling rate of unpolished slabs does not exceed Rs. 10 per I00 sq. ft. In the event of the selling rate going above this figure the royalty per 100 sq. ft. shall be increased by 25% of the excess over ten rupees. (ii) The minimum royalty will be payable in four equal instalments in advance every quarter. Provided that if in any quarter the royalty payable calculated at the rate m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee the Tribunal submitted the following question to the High Court of Delhi under section 66(1) of the Act. " Whether the payment of royalty in excess of the aforesaid minimum is deductible under section 10?" This question has to be understood in the light of the controversy between the parties before the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. That contro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r-tax or excess profits tax in the State of Kotah during the relevant years. That being so, there was no question of the excess royalty being made to pay in lieu of income-tax or super-tax or excess profits tax. If that is so then the excess royalty paid cannot be in lieu of income-tax, supertax or excess profits tax. It was merely payable under the terms of a contract, though the reason given for....