THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MEERUT AND ANOTHER vs. O.N.G.C AS AGENT OF MR. R.I. GOVINACHVIL

ITA/177/1999HC UttarakhandUKHC01025192200321 May 2004Bench: OTHER1 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 under section 195-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on its prior judgment in Income Tax Appeal No. 470 of 2001, dated September 30, 2003, which covered the same issue. The question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. The specific reasoning from the prior judgment is not detailed in this order, but the ratio would be that single-stage grossing up is the correct method under Section 195-A in these circumstances.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns Assessment Year 1990-91. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Meerut, and another are the appellants, and ONGC, Dehradun, acting as agent for Mr. R.I. Govinchvili, is the respondent. 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed a single-stage grossing up. This appeal challenges the ITAT's direction. The High Court notes that the matter is covered by its prior decision in ITA No. 470 of 2001, dated September 30, 2003, involving the same parties and issue.

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 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 under section 195-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee (respondent). However, the decision implies the assessee supported the ITAT's view of single-stage grossing up. Revenue's Contention: The revenue (appellant) contended that the Assessing Officer's application of multi-stage grossing up was correct, and the ITAT erred in directing single-stage grossing up under Section 195-A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 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. 344 of 2001 Old No. 177 of 1999

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut & another

……. Appellants

Versus

O.N.G.C., Dehradun As agent of Mr. R.I. Govinchvili …….. 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 our 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 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. 21.05.2004 G

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →