THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and ANOTHER vs. ATWOOD OCEAUICS INTERATIONAL AS AGENT OF TIGGA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/110/1999HC UttarakhandUKHC01025138200316 October 2003Author: OTHER1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the matter was squarely covered by its previous judgment 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). For the reasons recorded in that judgment, the Court answered the question in the affirmative, meaning in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The ratio decidendi is that the ITAT's direction for single-stage grossing up of tax perquisites was justified. The operative direction was that the appeal be disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns Assessment Year 1990-91. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Meerut, and another were the appellants, and ONGC, representing Mr. Zvadaki Gueorgui, was the respondent. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The core of the dispute involves the method of grossing up tax perquisites paid by ONGC on behalf of the assessee. The Assessing Officer had applied a multi-stage grossing up, which the ITAT directed to be a single-stage grossing up. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT 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 195A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The assessee argued in favour of single-stage grossing up. The revenue argued for multi-stage grossing up. The ITAT had ruled in favour of single-stage grossing up.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 195A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Assessment Year 1990-91

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT- NAINITAL

Income Tax Appeal No. 318 of 2001 (Old No. -110/1999)

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut and another

……… Appellants.

Vs.

ONCG, as representative of Mr. Zvadaki Gueorgui, C/io M/s VVO Machino Import, Tel Bhawan, Dehradun.

……… Respondent.

Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate for the appe3llants, None for the respondent.

Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

By means of this appeal following question of law is raised for consideration of this Court:- Q. 1 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT 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 195A of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

The matter is squarely covered by the judgment dated 30th September 2003 of this Court passed in Income Tax Appeal no.470 of 2001 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut & another vs. O.N.G.C., Dehradun.

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. (Brahma Singh Verma, J.)

(M.M. Ghildiyal, J.)

Dt. 19 .07.2004. NCM:

More judgments on Section 195A

All 148 judgments and leading authorities on Section 195A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →