PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT & TP) vs. OUTECH GMBH & CO. KG C/O OUTOTECH INDIA PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers

ITA/29/2020HC CalcuttaWBCHCO007534201520 January 2022Author: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had remitted the entire tax arrears, with Form No. 5 being issued by the appropriate authority. In light of this development, the Court held that the appeal need not be decided on its merits. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as the respondent/assessee had availed the benefit of the scheme and paid the tax. The substantial question of law was left open. No specific finding was given on the question of whether the income accrued in India.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (IT & TP) against an order dated 16.06.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'C' Bench, Kolkata. The appeal pertains to assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The substantial question of law admitted for decision was whether the sale and supply of designs and drawings by the assessee resulted in income that accrued in India. The assessee, Outotech GmbH & Co. KG, represented by Outotech India Pvt. Ltd., had availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the entire tax arrears were remitted, and Form No. 5 was issued by the appropriate authority on 03.07.2020.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the subject sale and supply of designs and drawings by the assessee resulted in income which accrued in India? (Question of law or mixed law and fact, concerning accrual of income in India). Assessee's contention: The assessee submitted that they have availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, and the entire tax arrears have been remitted. Form No. 5, dated 03.07.2020, has been issued by the appropriate authority. Therefore, the appeal need not be decided on merits. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding the substantial question of law. The appeal was admitted on the question of law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD-1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Juri iction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE

ITA 29 of 2020

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT & TP) VERSUS OUTECH GMBH & CO. KG. C/O OUTOTECH INDIA PVT. LTD.

BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM AND The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 20th January, 2022. Appearance: Mr. S.N. Dutta, Adv. …for the appellant.

Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Adv. ...for the respondent.

The Court : This appeal by the Revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 16.06.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA Nos. 431/Kol/2014 and ITA No.283/Kol/2015 for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The appeal was admitted on 27.02.2020 to decide the following substantial questions of law: I) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the subject sale and supply of designs and drawings by the assessee resulted in income which accrued in India? Heard Mr. S.N. Dutta, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee submitted that the assessee has availed the benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the entire tax arrears have been remitted and Form No.5 dated 03.07.2020 has been issued by the appropriate authority. In the light of the same, the appeal need not be decided on merits. Consequently, the appeal stands disposed of as the respondent/assessee has availed the benefit of the said scheme and also paid the tax. Consequently, the substantial question of law is left open.

(T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

s.pal/pkd

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →