9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are as follows: Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was legally justified in holding that it was not ONGC4s obligation to deduct tax at source on the basis that the assessee was an agent of the non-resident company (NRC) namely M/s Atwood Oceanics Intl. SA for the period under consideration whereas vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e non-resident company was left to be decided by further contracts. Subsequently, the non-resident company and ONGC executed a contract vide their agreement dated 22.2.1985 by making minor amendment that the corporate tax liability after 27.10.1984 would rest with the non-resident foreign company. The Assessing Officer accordingly initiated the proceedings under Section 201(1A) of the I.T. Act on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. Hence, the Department has come up in the appeal before this Court. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgments given by the courts below. In the facts and circumstances of the case, after having gone through the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax as well as also the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and in the light of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and since the assessment was completed both under Sections 141A and 143(3) of the I.T. Act for both the tax protected and non-tax protected tax, the assessee was the agent of the non-resident company for both the years. Hence, the Tribunal rightly held that there was no reasonable clause for charging interest Under Section 201(1A) of the Act. Therefore, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has elabor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
