PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DAECHANG SEAT CO.LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, in view of the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the appellant (Revenue) that the amount involved in the appeal is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars No. 5/2024 and 09/2024, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were left open. Therefore, the Tribunal's findings on the taxability of the guarantee fee, the applicability of Article 22 of the India-Korea DTAA, the eligibility for DTAA benefits, the assessee's offer of income as business income, the TDS paid, and the scope of the assessment order are not adjudicated upon by the High Court. The quashing of the Section 263 order by the ITAT also remains unexamined on merits.
What were the facts?
The appeal is filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Chennai, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 05.07.2023 in ITA No. 1643/Chny/2019. The assessment years involved are 2014-15 and 2015-16. The dispute concerns the taxability of guarantee fees received by the assessee, M/s. Daechang Seat Co. Ltd., in India, and the applicability of the India-Korea Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The assessee had offered the guarantee fee as business income and paid taxes via TDS. The ITAT's order is under challenge.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal was to decide the following substantial questions of law: For AY 2014-15: 1. Whether the ITAT erred in holding that the guarantee fee received is subject to Article 22 of the India-Korea DTAA? 2. Whether the ITAT erred in holding that the assessee is eligible for the benefit of Article 22 of the India-Korea DTAA? 3. Whether the ITAT erred in holding that the guarantee fee is not taxable in India, despite the assessee offering it as business income and paying TDS, without claiming DTAA benefits? 4. Whether the ITAT went beyond the assessment order's scope, which pertained to the tax rate applicable under the Income Tax Act read with the India-Korea DTAA? For AY 2015-16: 5. Whether the ITAT erred in quashing the order passed under Section 263 by the CIT (International Taxation)? 6. Whether the ITAT erred in holding that the guarantee fee received is subject to Article 22 of the India-Korea DTAA? 7. Whether the ITAT erred in holding that the guarantee fee is not taxable in India, despite the assessee offering it as business income and paying TDS, without claiming DTAA benefits? 8. Whether the ITAT went beyond the assessment order's scope, which pertained to the tax rate applicable under the Income Tax Act read with the India-Korea DTAA? Assessee's arguments: Not recorded. Revenue's arguments: The amount involved is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars No. 5/2024 and 09/2024.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA NO. 45 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.03.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. S. SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN TCA NO. 45 of 2025 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation, Chennai-34 ..Appellant Vs M/s.Daechang Seat Co.Ltd., C/o. Ms/. Daechang India Seat Co. Pvt Ltd., No. 491, Mannur Village, Sriperumbudur Village, Kanchipuram- 602105 ..Respondent Prayer : This Appeal is filed under Memorandum of Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 05.07.2023 in ITA No. 1643/Chny/2019. For Appellant : Mr. R.Karthik Ranganathan, Standing Counsel JUDGMENT (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble S.S.Sundar J.) This appeal is directed against the formal order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 05.07.2023 in ITA No. 1643/Chny/2019. In this appeal the appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law to be answered; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 02:37:44 pm ) For AY 2014-15: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT was correct in holding that the guarantee fee received is subject to provisions of Article 22 of India-Korea DTAA? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT was correct in holding that the assessee is eligible for the benefit of Article 22 of India-Korea DTAA? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT was correct in holding that guarantee fee is not income taxable in India without appreciating the fact that assessee had offered the guarantee fee as business income and paid the taxes by way of TDS made and had never claimed the benefit of provisions of India-Korea DTAA? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT was correct in going beyond the issue involved in the assessment order which pertains to the rate of tax applicable under the provisions of the Income Tax read with India-Korea DTAA, on the income brought to tax? FOR AY 2015 – 16 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT was correct in quashing the order u/s 263 passed by CIT (Intl. Taxn)? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT was correct in holding that the guarantee fee received is subject to provisions of Articuls 22 of India-Korea DTAA? 7. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT was correct in holding that guarantee fee is not income taxable in India without appreciating the fact that assessee had offered the guarantee fee as business income and paid the taxes by way of TDS made and had never claimed the benefit of provisions of India-Korea DTAA? https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 02:37:44 pm ) 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT was correct in going beyond the issue involved in the assessment order which pertains to the rate of tax applicable under the provisions of the Income Tax read with India-Korea DTAA on the income brought to tax? 2. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the amount involved in the present appeal is below the monetary limit as per the circulars issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes in Circular No. 5/2024 and 09/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and 17.09.2024 respectively. 3. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the appellant, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the substantial questions of law are left open. No costs. (S.S.SUNDAR J.) (C.SARAVANAN J.) 04.03.2025 Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes ak https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 02:37:44 pm ) S. S. SUNDAR, J. and C. SARAVANAN, J. ak TCA NO. 45 of 2025 04.03.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 02:37:44 pm )
More judgments on Section 260-A
- Rijwan vs Income Tax OfficerITA/3/202023 Sept 2026
- Manoj Gupta vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…ITA/243/202618 Sept 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, JammuITA/20/20142 Apr 2026
- Late Shri Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar vs The Income Tax OfficerITA/16/202526 Feb 2026
- Shri K. Samba Siva Rao ( HUF), Hyd vs I.T.O., HydITTA/181/20109 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026