Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (10) TMI 327

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the sake of convenience. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: The facts of the case are that the appellant is a public limited company, inter alia, engaged in the business of providing computer education and training. During the relevant assessment year it was providing computer education and training through its own centres and also through. franchisees who are providing NIIT courses under a license from appellant. One of the models being adopted by the appellant to run its business mainly in big cities was Metro Centre. Under the arrangement the franchisees were providing NIIT courses under a license from the appellant and the respective franchisees were to bring together their resources for the purposes of providing comp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed the services in accordance with the methods and process provided by the appellant it was essential that the appellant collected the fees and pay the franchisees share on milestone basis. The fees shared by the appellant with the franchisees, was for the purpose of convenience in the following nomenclature viz., (1) Marketing claim. (2) Infrastructure claim. 3. The learned Departmental Representative pleaded that the AO examined the agreement in which the assessee is licensor and the other party is franchisee in detail. The assessee was having rights in respect of conduct of classes, conduct of examination and collection of the money. The assessee also provided technical know-how. The major rights and responsibilities were with the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... parting education by pooling the resources with franchisee. The licensee agreement does not give any right or interest whatsoever in the premises. The infrastructure claimed is only a nomenclature given to the share of revenue that accrued to the licensee for undertaking various responsibilities and pooling various infrastructure facilities. The franchisee agreement had many other clauses like student transfer, staff movement, student admission, annual conference setting up of educational centre, maintenance of infrastructure insurance, local marketing, invoicing, accounting, student registration and day-to-day admission of the education centre. Thus, the revenue shared by the licensee was not for infrastructure only. The agreement clause a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... no security deposit therefore, for premises. The assessee never got the possession of the premises. There was no minimum guarantee in the agreement. Therefore, it is pleaded that the provisions of s. 194-I are not applicable. 5. After hearing the rival submissions, we hold as under: The appellant has entered into the agreement with the franchisees for running the education centre at various metro cities. The fees was shared between the assessee and the franchisee as per the clauses of the agreement. The details of provisions regarding conduct of the business were stipulated in the agreement. The dominant intention of the parties of the, agreement was to conduct the business and not mere letting out of the building, furniture and fixtur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ter the period of 183 days from the permissible date. He pleaded to condone the delay in filing cross-objections. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative pleaded that cross-objections for challenging the limitation (which is not provided in the IT Act), which themselves are barred by limitation. He pleaded that the assessee was having no sufficient cause for delay in filing the cross-objections. The assessee has not given any concrete explanation for the delay. Every day's delay has to be explained by the assessee in which it had failed. 6.1 After hearing the rival submissions, we are of the view that there is no acceptable explanation for filing the cross-objections beyond the time available. Therefore, we are not in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates