COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX MEERUT vs. O.N.G.C REPRESENTATIVE OF ALEXANDRE ANOUDRIEV

ITA/29/2000HC UttarakhandUKHC01025097200321 May 2004Bench: OTHER1 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the 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, as opposed to the multi-stage grossing up applied by the Assessing Officer under Section 195-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This decision is based on the reasoning provided in a prior judgment of the same court, dated September 30, 2003, in Income Tax Appeal No. 470 of 2001, which dealt with a similar issue between the same parties. The question is answered in the affirmative, favoring the assessee and against the Department. The appeal is disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut, and another against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning Assessment Year 1990-91. The respondent is ONGC, Dehradun, representing Mr. Alexandre Anoudriev. The core 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 a single-stage grossing up. The High Court is reviewing the correctness of the Tribunal's direction.

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 judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, argued that the Assessing Officer was correct in applying multi-stage grossing up under Section 195-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment does not specify any authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by the revenue.

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. 362 of 2001 (Old No. 29 of 2000)

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut & another

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

Versus O.N.G.C., Dehradun As Representative of Mr. Alexandre Anoudriev .......... 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 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. 21.05.2004

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →