1990 (4) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... India, the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the order/ letter dated June 11, 1987, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Foreign Tax Division, New Delhi, refusing to approve the petitioner's agreement dated November 15, 1985, with Van Leeman, Holland (Pipe and Fittings) (for short "foreign concern"), for the supply of technical know-how. The Board, it may be stated, h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....technical know-how under an agreement dated November 15, 1985, after getting the same approved by the consultant of the foreign project. The foreign concern supplied equipment and other material necessary for the setting up of the foreign project. It is not clear as to who had undertaken the execution of the foreign project. By its explanation dated February 10, 1987, the petitioner informed the B....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....writ matters is limited. It is extraordinary, special and discretionary. The court would like to exercise the jurisdiction in cases where there is no dispute about the facts and the impugned order suffers from a patent error of law. All the same, the court does not agree with Shri Jetley, learned counsel for the Revenue, that the provisions of section 80HHB(1)(b) are attracted whenever an India....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ance Minister's speech are relevant only when the provision itself is not clear and ambiguous. When a provision is unambiguous and is not capable of two meanings, it is not necessary to refer to the Finance Minister's speech or to the objects in introducing the section. Considering the facts of the case in this background, on facts stated by the petitioner in its representation dated February 1....