THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. O.N.G.C.

ITA/81/1999HC UttarakhandUKHC01015033200424 May 2004Author: OTHER3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in directing the application of single-stage grossing up of tax perquisites paid by ONGC on behalf of the assessee, instead of the multi-stage grossing up applied by the Assessing Officer. The Court's decision was based on its prior judgment dated September 30, 2003, in Income Tax Appeal No. 470 of 2001, involving the same parties and issue. The reasoning for this decision is not elaborated in this judgment but is stated to be covered by the earlier ruling. The question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns Assessment Year 1990-91 and was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut, and another against O.N.G.C., Dehradun, representing Mr. Nakhinov Rassim. 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, which was challenged before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the application of single-stage grossing up. The present appeal is before the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital, challenging the Tribunal's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct 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? Assessee's Contention: The assessee (represented by ONGC) contended that single-stage grossing up should be applied. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue (appellants) contended that multi-stage grossing up, as applied by the Assessing Officer, was correct. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments beyond what is implied by the issue framed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

195-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Assessment Year 1990-91

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL.

I.T.A. No. 233 of 2001 (Old No. 81 of 1999)

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut and another

.............. Appellants

Versus

O.N.G.C., Dehradun As representative of Mr. Nakhinov Rassim ............... Respondent

Hon. P.C. Verma, A.C.J. Hon. Rajesh Tandon, J.

Mr. S.K. Posti, learned counsel for the Tax Deptt. Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent.

The matter is squarely covered by or decision dated 30th September, 2003 in Income Tax Appeal No. 470 of 2001; The Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut & another Vs O.N.G.C., Dehradun.

The question raised before us is as follows: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct 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?"

For the reasons recorded in the above judgment in Income Tax Appeal No. 470 of 2001 dated 30th September, 2003, we answer this question in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

(Rajesh Tandon, J.) (P.C. Verma, A.C.J.) Dt. 24.05.2004 G

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →