VEDANTA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SESA STERLITE LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5367/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 February 2023AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to issue the refund of excess dividend tax. This decision followed a previous ruling for the same assessee in a prior assessment year.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a refund of Rs. 11,22,14,052 as excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid. The CIT(A) rejected this claim, stating no provision existed for such a refund.

What were the issues?

Whether excess Dividend Distribution Tax paid can be claimed as a refund. Whether the scheme of amalgamation impacts the claim for refund of DDT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115-O(IA),Section 237

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI

Before: N.K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Adv, Shri Rohit Garg, Adv
For Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Hearing: 02/02/2023

The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.04.2019 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 9, New Delhi (“CIT(A)”) pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2013-14.

2.

The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

1. That the CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in rejecting the claim of Appellant seeking refund of Rs. 11,22,14,052, being excess Dividend Distribution Tax (referred to as “DDT”), allegedly on the ground that there is no provision under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) to allow granting such refund of DDT.

1.1 That the CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the aforesaid claim made by the Appellant was legitimate claim made, in the return of income itself, after considering the credit of dividend(s), as per Section 115-0(IA) of the Act, received from subsidiary(ies) which was later on merged with the Appellant. 1.2 That the CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the DDT being an additional income tax paid by the Appellant, the refund of the same could be claimed under Section 237 of the Act. 1.3 That the CIT(Appeals) erroneously observed that the Appellant failed to prove that Scheme of Amalgamation allowed refund of DDT actually paid by the amalgamating subsidiary(ies), without appreciating that the Appellant only claimed credit of dividend(s) received from subsidiary(ies) which resulted in refund of excess DDT which was paid by the Appellant only.”

3.

We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the records. Parties have brought to our notice that identical issue arose for consideration in assessee’s appeal for AY 2012-13 filed before the Tribunal. Therefore, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee.

4.

We have gone through the order dated 17.11.2021 of the Tribunal in in the case of the assessee for AY 2012-13 (copy at page 1-2 of assessee’s Paper Book) wherein similar issue of claim of credit of dividend received from subsidiaries which resulted in refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by the assessee was involved. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO to issue refund as per the provisions of law at the earliest with the following observations:

“2. … We find that this issue is not pertaining to refund of DTT perse but refund of excess credit of dividend tax which is in excess of the actual amount payable. Nor this is not a case of the assessee in claiming the dividend tax as expense but claiming the excess dividend tax paid as refund.”

5.

Since the facts and circumstances remain the same in the year under appeal before us, following the decision (supra) of the Tribunal, we restore

Vedanta Ltd. vs. ACIT 3 the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO to issue the refund of excess dividend tax paid by the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 237

All 132 judgments and leading authorities on Section 237 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →