M/S. AIR INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE JT CIT (I.T) 3,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9320/MUM/2004Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 April 2016AY 2000-20012 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee no longer wished to pursue the appeals on merits due to subsequent developments and current advice. Therefore, the grievances raised by the assessee were not adjudicated.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Air India Limited, was treated as an agent of Carbijet Inc under Section 163 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee appealed this decision, arguing that Carbijet Inc was not in receipt of income from the appellant and that double recovery of tax was not permissible.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee can be treated as a representative assessee under Section 163, and whether double recovery of tax is permissible.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 163,Section 195,Section 201

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI ‘L’ BENCH, MUMBAI

Appearances by: Jitendra Sanghvi, for the appellant Jasbir Chauhan, for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing: January 06, 2016 Date of pronouncing the order: April 5th, 2016 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar AM:

1.

These two appeals, filed by the assessee, are directed against two separate, but materially similar, orders dated 4th April 2003 passed by the learned CIT(A) upholding the assessee before us being treated as an agent of Carbijet Inc under section 163 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Grievances raised by the assessee are as follows:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in relying on his order in the case of Caribjet Inc to conclude that Caribjet Inc. was in receipt of Income from the appellant and further erred in confirming the order u/s 163 dated 6.3.2003 passed by the Jr. Director of Income Tax (JDIT). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in rejecting submission of the and 9321/Mum/2004 Assessment Year: 2000-01 and 2001-02 Page 2 of 2 appellant that the Department having already passed order u/s 195(2) read with Section 201 of the I.T. Act and having already proceeded against the appellant for recovery of tax in respect of compensation received by Caribjet Inc for termination of lease, there cannot be double recovery of tax in respect of the same compensation from the appellant through order u/s 163 and further erred in confirming the order u/s 163 dt. 6.3.2003 passed by the JDIT.

3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in rejecting submission of the appellant that none of the conditions prescribed in Sec. 163 of the I.T. Act for treating appellant as a representative assessee of Caribjet Inc, was satisfied in this case and further erred in confirming the order u/s 163 dt. 26.3.2003 passed by the JDIT.”

2.

Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in view of the subsequent developments, and in the light of the advice they have now, the assessee does not wish to pursue these appeals at this stage. He submits that the issue, on merits, stands covered against the assessee.

3.

Learned Departmental Representative, in the light of the above submissions, has nothing to say. He leaves it to the bench.

4.

In view of the above discussions, grievances raised by the assessee are not required to be adjudicated on merits. We, therefore, summarily dismiss the same.

5.

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 5th day of April, 2016.

More judgments on Section 163

All 127 judgments and leading authorities on Section 163 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →