C.I.T. vs. M/S.BRITISH AIRWAYS

PDF · subscribers
C.A. No.-000751-000751 - 2010Supreme Court20 January 20103 pages
For Petitioner: B. V. BALARAM DASFor Respondent: SHEKHAR PRIT JHA
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the substantial question of law regarding limitation, decided not to delve into it. The Court observed that the controversy concerning TDS on foreign salary payments was settled by its judgment in CIT vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Court deemed the limitation issue academic because, even if the Department were correct on limitation, the question of whether assessees could be declared in default under Section 192 read with Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on such debatable points would still arise. Furthermore, the Court was informed that the assessees had paid the differential tax and interest and undertook not to claim a refund. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Department were disposed of, leaving the question of law on limitation open. The Court clarified that the law laid down in Eli Lilly & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. was applicable only to Section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns a batch of civil appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) against M/s. British Airways and other respondents. The appeals arise from orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The core issue revolves around the validity and timeliness of orders passed under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT had held these orders to be invalid and barred by time. The Supreme Court noted that at the relevant time, there was a debate regarding the deductibility of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on foreign salary payments to expatriates working in India, a controversy later settled by the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Court was also informed that the assessees had paid the differential tax and interest and undertook not to claim a refund.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the orders passed under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid and barred by time having been passed beyond a reasonable period? Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee regarding the limitation issue. However, the ITAT's finding, which is under challenge, suggests the assessee argued that the orders were passed beyond a reasonable period and were therefore invalid. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the revenue regarding the limitation issue. However, the revenue has filed appeals against the ITAT's decision, implying they argued that the orders were valid and not barred by time.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 192

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.751 OF 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.1455 of 2009) Commissioner of Income Tax ...Appellant(s) Versus M/s. British Airways ...Respondent(s) W I T H Civil Appeal No.752/2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.1456/2009, Civil Appeal No.753/2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.4781/2009, Civil Appeal No.754/2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.4774/2009, Civil Appeal No.755/2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.7491/2009, Civil Appeal No.756/2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.8162/2009, Civil Appeal No.757/2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.8177/2009, Civil Appeal No.758/2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.8146/2009, Civil Appeal No.759/2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.8661/2009, Civil Appeal No.760/2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.7745/2009, Civil Appeal No.761/2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.6415/2009, Civil Appeal No.762/2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.10470/2009, Civil Appeal No.763/2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.9267/2009, Civil Appeal No.764/2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.6389/2009, Civil Appeal No.765/2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.2808/2009, Civil Appeal No.766/2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.9271/2009, Civil Appeal No.785/2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.6292/2009, Civil Appeal No.774/2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.3738/2009, Civil Appeal No.776/2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.5145/2009 and Civil Appeal No.778/2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.7545/2009.

O R D E R Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The following substantial question of law arises ...2/- for consideration in this batch of civil appeals: “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the orders passed under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are invalid and barred by time having been passed beyond a reasonable period.”

Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that, on the facts and circumstances of these cases, the question on the point of limitation formulated by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the present cases need not be gone into for the simple reason that, at the relevant time, there was a debate on the question as to whether TDS was deductible under the Income Tax Act, 1961, on foreign salary payment as a component of the total salary paid to an expatriate working in India? This controversy came to an end vide judgement of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported in [2009] 312 I.T.R. 225. The question on limitation has become academic in these cases because, even assuming that the Department is right on the issue of limitation still the question would arise whether on such debatable points, the assessee(s) could be declared as assessee(s) in default under Section 192 read with Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, we are informed that the assessee(s) have paid the differential tax. They have paid the interest and they ...3/- further undertake not to claim refund for the amounts paid. Before concluding, we may also state that, in Eli Lilly & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) vide Paragraph 21, this Court has clarified that the law laid down in the said case was only applicable to the provisions of Section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Leaving the question of law open on limitation, these civil appeals filed by the Department are disposed of with no order as to costs. ......................J. [S.H. KAPADIA] ......................J. [H.L. DATTU] New Delhi, January 20, 2010.

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →