COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. O.N.G.C. AS AGENT TARANOV VLADIMIR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/19/2002HC UttarakhandUKHC01007255200302 September 20052 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High 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 the Tribunal was correct in its view 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, following this precedent, the High Court dismissed the present appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns Assessment Year 1992-93 and 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. The assessee is Mr. Taranov Vladimir, represented by ONGC. 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'. This appeal challenges the Tribunal's direction.

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: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The Assessing Officer applied Multi Stage Grossing UP. The Tribunal's direction to apply Single Stage Grossing UP is challenged.

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. 19 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. Taranov Vladimir, 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. 2762/Del of 1994. The dispute relates to the Assessment Year 1992-

93.

The assessee is Mr. Taranov Vladimir, 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 Appellant 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 →