COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ONGC

PDF · subscribers
ITA/150/1998HC UttarakhandUKHC01025176200306 August 2003Author: OTHER1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the application made by the Revenue under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the Tribunal had erred in refusing to refer the question of law to the High Court. The specific question of law to be decided by the High Court was whether the tax perquisites obtained by ONGC were includable in its total income, considering the provisions of section 44BB and, alternatively, section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The High Court directed the Tribunal to draw a statement of case and refer this question of law to the High Court under section 256(1). The Court requested the Tribunal to expedite the process due to the assessment year being 1986-87. No finding was given on the merits of the inclusion of perquisites.

What were the facts?

This matter concerns an application filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut (the Revenue) under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The application was made because the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) had refused to refer a question of law to the High Court. The assessee is the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), acting as an agent for Nowsco Well Services Co., Dehradun. The assessment year in question is 1986-87. The dispute revolves around whether tax perquisites obtained by ONGC were includable in its total income. The Revenue contended that these perquisites were includable under section 44BB of the Act, or alternatively, under section 28(iv). The Tribunal's refusal to refer the matter to the High Court is the action under challenge.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee was right in contending that tax perquisites obtained by ONGC were includable in its total income, specifically in light of section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argued that these perquisites were includable under section 44BB. The Revenue also contended, in the alternative, that these perquisites were includable under section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's contention, as recorded, is that the perquisites were not includable. The Tribunal erred in not referring this question of law to the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44BB,Section 28(iv),Section 256(2),Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL

Income Tax Application No.402 of 2001 (Old No. 150 of 1998)

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut and another

………… Applicant

Vs.

Oil and Natural Gas Commission As agent of Nowsco Well Services Co., Dehradun

…..……

Respondent

……..

Sri S.K.Posti, Advocate for the appellants Sri J.P. Joshi, for the respondents

Coram: Hon. S.H.Kapadia, C.J. Hon. P.C. Verma, J.

Date: 06.08.2003

PC:

This is an application made by the department under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act. This application is made because the Tribunal has refused to refer the question of law to this Court. A short point which arises for determination in this case is whether the assessee was right in contending that Tax perquisites obtained by the O.N.G.C. was includable in its total income. The department took the view that in view of section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, such perquisites were includable in the total income of the assessee. In the alternative, the department took the view that such perquisites stipulated under section 28(iv) and, therefore, even on that ground on alternative basis such benefits were includable in the total income of the assessee. This point needs to be decided by this Court. The Tribunal erred in not referring the question to this Court under section 256 of the Income Tax Act. In the circumstances, we allow the application made by the department and direct the Tribunal to draw statement of case and refer the above question of law to this Court under section 256 (1) of the Act. Since this matter pertains for the assessment year 1986-87, we request the Tribunal to expedite the procedure and process of drawing of statement of case. Application is finally disposed of. No order as to costs.

(P.C. Verma, J.) (S. H. Kapadia, C.J.) AK

More judgments on Section 44BB

All 388 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44BB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →