THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. O.N.G.C. AS AGENT MR. MAMEDOV AKHMED

PDF · subscribers
ITA/67/1999HC UttarakhandUKHC01015020200402 September 20052 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the application of single-stage grossing up of tax perquisites. The Court followed its own previous 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 judgment, a Division Bench of the High Court had held that multiple-stage grossing up of income was not applicable to notional income under section 44BB read with section 195A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns the Assessment Year 1990-91 and is filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut, and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax against an order dated November 19, 1998, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “A”. The assessee is Mr. Mamedov Akhmed, represented by ONGC, Dehradun, acting as his agent. The dispute revolves around the method of grossing up tax perquisites paid by ONGC on behalf of the assessee. The Assessing Officer applied a multi-stage grossing up, while the Tribunal directed the application of single-stage grossing up.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 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 195-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Assessing Officer applied multi-stage grossing up. The Tribunal directed single-stage grossing up. The revenue challenges the Tribunal's direction.

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. 219 of 2001 (Old No. 67 of 1999) 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Assessment), Dehradun. … Appellants Versus ONGC Tel Bhawan, Dehradun As agent of Mr. Mamedov Akhmed. ...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 19th November 1998 passed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “A”, in ITA No. 7831/Del of 1992. The dispute relates to the Assessment Year 1990-

91.

The assessee is Mr. Mamedov Akhmed, 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 under section 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 →