Wp/4891/2006 Of Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.ltd v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune And Ors
High Court
21 Aug 2006 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Wp/4891/2006 Of Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.ltd v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune And Ors
Date of order
21 Aug 2006
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp/4891/2006 Of Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.ltd v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune And Ors, the High Court (2006) decided the matter.
Decision: Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 27th April 2006 passed by respondent No.2 and direct the Revenue to refund the amount of Rs.64,40,188/-.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.4891 OF 2006
Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. .. .. Petitioner
v/s.
Income-tax Officer,
Ward 11(5), Pune & anr. .. .. Respondents
Ms.Arati Vissanji for petitioner.
Mr.Ashok Kotangale with Mr.S.R.Chavan and Mr.Arun
Nagarjun for respondents.
-----
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 21t August 2006
P.C. :
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
A reply has been filed and the rejoinder has also
been filed. We have perused them.
3. The question involved in this Petition is
regarding the Financial Year 2000-2001. The case
of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the
Indian Assessee and is manufacturing vehicles in
India. It pays the royalty amount to M/s.Piaggio
Velcoll Europel Sp-A Italy. However, as far as
this year is concerned, the royalty payable as per
the Agreement was waived by the Italian party i.e.
Piaggio Italy. It has recorded this in its letter
-2-
dated 25th September 2001. This letter is
enclosed to the rejoinder in which it is mentioned
that due to the temporary financial difficulties
faced by the petitioner, it has waived the royalty
amount for the Financial Year 2000-2001. In view
thereof, there were no occasions for the
petitioner to charge under Section 195 of the
Income Tax Act.
4. The petitioner has already made the
payments of the necessary royalty and it is
seeking the refund thereof which is being denied
by the order dated 27th April 2006 passed by
respondent No.2.
5. Although a reply has been filed by the
Revenue, the aforesaid factual aspect remains
uncontroverted. This being the position, there is
no alternative but to set aside the impugned order
dated 27th April 2006 and direct the Revenue to
refund the amount of Rs.64,40,188/-. Accordingly,
we set aside the impugned order dated 27th April
2006 passed by respondent No.2 and direct the
Revenue to refund the amount of Rs.64,40,188/-.
The refund may be given at outsider side within
six weeks from today.
-3-
6. We may add that the Revenue has relied
upon Circular No.790 dated 20th April 2000, but in
the facts of the present case, the same would not
get attracted.
7. Rule is made absolute accordingly in terms
of prayer (a). There will be no order as to
costs.
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.