COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. O.N.G.C. AS REPR. ARPOV BORIN V.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/20/2002HC UttarakhandUKHC01007256200302 September 20052 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal. It followed its own prior Division Bench judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut and another Vs. ONGC as agent of Cooper Engineering Services International Incorporated and connected cases, reported in (2003) 264 ITR 340. In that precedent, the Court had held that the Tribunal was correct in ruling that Multiple Stage Grossing Up was not applicable to notional income under Section 44BB read with Section 195A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the High Court found no justification to interfere with the Tribunal's direction to apply Single Stage Grossing up.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun, against an order dated May 3, 2001, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (“SMC”). The assessment year in dispute is 1992-93. The assessee is Mr. Arpov Boris V., represented by ONGC, Dehradun. The core of the dispute concerns the method of grossing up tax perquisites paid by ONGC on behalf of the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the application of Single Stage Grossing up of tax perquisites paid by ONGC on behalf of the assessee, instead of Multi Stage Grossing Up applied by the Assessing Officer under Section 195A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the Tribunal's decision, which the High Court is considering, implies the assessee likely argued for single-stage grossing up. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by the appellants, argued for the application of Multi Stage Grossing Up by the Assessing Officer under Section 195A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 195A,Section 44BB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2002 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-1, Dehradun. … Appellants Versus M/s Oil & Natural Gas Corporation as representative of Mr. Arpov Boris V., Tel Bhawan, Dehradun. ...Respondent Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for the respondent. Coram: Hon. Cyriac Joseph, C.J. Hon. J.C.S. Rawat, J.

JUDGMENT

CYRIAC JOSEPH, C.J. (Oral)

1.

This appeal is against the order dated 3rd May 2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “SMC”, in ITA. No. 2763/Del of 1994. The dispute relates to the Assessment Year 1992-

93.

The assessee is Mr. Arpov Boris V., represented by ONGC., Tel Bhawan, Dehradun.

2.

The substantial question of law raised in the appeal is as follows:

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing to apply Single Stage Grossing up of the Tax perquisites paid by ONGC on behalf of the assessee instead of Multi Stage Grossing Up, applied by the Assessing Officer U/S 195 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? ”

3.

A

More judgments on Section 195A

All 148 judgments and leading authorities on Section 195A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →