The argument of the revenue based on McDowell & Co cannot be accepted because the judgment rendered therein by Justice Chinnappa Reddy has been explained in detail by the later judgment in Azadi Bachao Andolan. It is well settled that if a smaller Bench of the Supreme Court has later on explained its earlier larger Bench then the later judgment is binding on the High Court. (Precedents referred to). Accordingly, the view expressed in Azadi Bachao Andolan has to be accepted as binding and it cannot be said that the principle of law laid down by the House of Lords in Duke of Westminster as applied in Azadi Bachao Andolan is no longer applicable. Moreover, no such principles having been laid down in the majority judgment in McDowell & Co

The argument of the Revenue that the restrictions imposed on the manufacturer to (a) utilise the formula provided by the assessee, (b) affix the trade-mark of the assessee, (c) manufacture as per specifications provided by the assessee and (iii) deal exclusively with the assessee show that the contract is not one of sale is not acceptable because this has not been the understanding of the law at any point of time even by the CBDT and judicial precedents. Though a product is manufactured to the specifications of a customer, the agreement would constitute a contract for sale, if (i) the property in the article passes to the customer upon delivery and (ii) the material that was required was not sourced from the customer / purchaser, but was independently obtained by the manufacturer from a third party

Once Parliament has legislated both in regard to the nature of the exclusion and the extent of the exclusion, it would not be open to the Court to order otherwise by rewriting the legislative provision. The task of interpretation is to find out the true intent of a legislative provision and it is clearly not open to the Court to legislate by substituting a formula or provision other than what has been legislated by Parliament. It is not open to say that something more than the 10% statutorily provided should also be allowed. In Shri Ram Honda Power Equip 289 ITR 475 the Delhi High Court has not adequately emphasized the entire rationale for confining the deduction only to the extent of ninety per cent of the excludible receipts and it cannot be followed

In KEC International it was noted that in a large number of matters orders are passed perfunctorily by the department only with an idea of effecting recovery before March 31, though such orders could have been passed earlier in detail and after recording proper reasons. The law laid down by the Division Bench has not led the authorities to act in compliance. This is an unfortunate state of affairs

To decide whether an institution exists solely for education and not to earn profit the predominant object of the activity has to be seen. The mere fact that an educational institution generates surplus after meeting the expenditure over a period of time does not mean that it ceases to exist ‘solely’ for educational. The test to be applied is whether the predominant object of the activity is to sub-serve the educational purpose or to earn profit. It should be seen whether profit-making is the predominant object of the activity or whether profit is incidental to the carrying of the activity. There is no requirement that the activity must be carried on in such a manner that it does not result in any profit. It would indeed be difficult for persons in charge of a trust or institution to so carry on the activity that the expenditure balances the income and there is no resulting profit. That would not only be difficult of practical realization but would also reflect unsound principle of management

The view taken by the Tribunal is not the correct approach. If the Tribunal wanted to differ to the earlier view taken by the Tribunal in the identical set of facts, judicial discipline required reference to the larger bench. One co-ordinate bench finding fault with another co-ordinate bench is not a healthy way of dealing with the matters

The observations of the Supreme Court in Transmission Corporation of AP 239 ITR 387 have to be read in the context of the question before the Court i.e. whether tax was deductible on the gross trading receipts or only on the “pure income profits”. The Court was not concerned with a case where the receipt was not chargeable to tax in the hands of the recipient at all. On the other hand the observations of the Court make it clear that the liability to deduct tax at source arises only when the sum payable to the non-resident is chargeable to tax. Even the plain language of s. 195 shows that the tax at source is to be deducted on the “sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act”. One can, therefore, reasonably say that the obligation to deduct tax at source is attracted only when the payment is chargeable to tax in India.