THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXINTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. SHANGHAI ELECTRIC GROUP CO. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/483/2018HC DelhiDLHC01094675201818 May 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that no question of law arose for consideration. The Tribunal had followed established High Court rulings in the cases of 'Director of Income Tax vs. Jacabs Civil Incorporated', 'Director of Income Tax, International Taxation vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. and Ors.', and 'Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-2 vs. ZTE Corporation'. Since the Tribunal's decision was based on these binding precedents from the High Court, the Court found the Revenue's appeal to be untenable. The reasoning is that when a lower appellate authority (ITAT) correctly applies the decisions of a higher court (High Court), no substantial question of law arises for further appeal to the High Court. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, filed an appeal against a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal concerns the collection of interest on the non-deposit of advance tax by the non-resident assessee, Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. This appeal pertains to the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated in the provided text, but it references identical appeals for another assessment year (ITA 409-410/2018) which were decided by the High Court on April 9, 2018. The ITAT's order, which is under challenge, followed previous High Court rulings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in its decision regarding the collection of interest on non-deposit of advance tax by a non-resident assessee? The Revenue's contention is that the ITAT's decision was incorrect. The judgment states that the Tribunal followed the decisions of the High Court in the cases of 'Director of Income Tax vs. Jacabs Civil Incorporated' (2001) 330 ITR 578, 'Director of Income Tax, International Taxation vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. and Ors.' (2015) 373 ITR 65, and 'Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-2 vs. ZTE Corporation' (2017) 392 ITR 80. The Revenue's argument, as implied by the dismissal of their appeal, is that these precedents should not have been applied or that the ITAT misapplied them. The judgment does not explicitly record the Revenue's specific arguments beyond the implication that the ITAT's reliance on High Court rulings was flawed. The assessee's arguments are not recorded.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 483/2018 & CM APPL 16029-16030/2018 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXINTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3

..... Appellant Through Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr.Standing Counsel

versus

SHANGHAI ELECTRIC GROUP CO. LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr.Deepak Chopra and Mr.Amit Shrivastava, Advs.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

O R D E R %

18.05.2018

The Revenue’s appeal questions the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter ‘ITAT’) with respect to the collection of interest on non-deposit of advance tax, in regard to the amount received by non-resident/assessee.

Identical appeals for another assessment year (ITA 409- 410/2018, The Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-3 vs. Shanghai Electric Group Co.Ltd.) were rejected by this Court on 09.4.2018. The Court had then observed, as follows: “The Tribunal (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) had followed the decisions of this Court in the case of „Director of Income Tax vs. Jacabs Civil Incorporated‟, (2001) 330 ITR 578, „Director of Income Tax, International Taxation vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. and Ors.‟, (2015) 373 ITR 65 and „Commissioner of Income

Tax, International Taxation-2 vs. ZTE Corporation‟ , (2017) 392 ITR 80. Since the Tribunal followed the rulings of this Court no question of law arises. These appeals are dismissed as untenable along with pending applications.”

For the same reasons the present appeal is rejected along with pending applications.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

A. K. CHAWLA, J MAY 18, 2018 ndn

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →