9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] on 06-06-2024 in the matter of an order passed by Ld. ACIT, Circle-1, Puducherry on 28-05-2022 rejecting an application filed by the assessee u/s 237 of the Act claiming refund of excess payment of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT). The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: - Ground No. 1 - General The Order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('Ld. CIT(A)') under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is unsustainable and bad in law. The denial of refund and rejection of claim of refund under section 237 of the Act by the CIT(A) is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case and hence liable to be quashed. The detailed grounds of appeal, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of DTAA. The CIT(A) has erred in facts and law by not considering the provisions of treaty for determining taxability of dividends in the case of Non-residents. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that subsequent amendments to domestic law shall not contradict international treaty obligations. Ground No.5- Section 115-0 of the Act does not override the provisions of Tax Treaty entered into by the central government with a country, under section 90 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law by placing reliance on Total Oil India P. Ltd. in 149 taxmann.com 332 wherein it was inter alia stated that section 115-O "starts with a non obstante clause overriding the other provisions of the Act". The Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DT has been paid by the Indian Company and consequently, the refund claim would need to be made by the Indian company and not the non-resident shareholders. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law by failing to appreciate that the appellant is eligible to DDT refund. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the liability to discharge DDT is on the Company declaring the dividends and accordingly, the claim for refund of excess DDT paid by the Indian Company shall be required to be made by the Indian company and not the non-resident shareholders. 9. Ground No. 9- The Appellant is eligible for DDT refund claim. Further, the time limit under section 239 of the Act relates to income of the company and does not relate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2020, DDT was abolished and withholding tax was introduced on payment of dividend. As a result of new provisions, dividend was now to be taxed in the hands of the recipients. These provisions would not apply retrospectively. Accordingly, the claim was rejected. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A), relying on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal (Special Bench) in the case of Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. (149 Taxmann.com 332), confirmed the stand of Ld. AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 3. Though the Ld. AR has relied on exhaustive written submissions which are placed on record, yet it is admitted position that the aforesaid issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the cited decision of Special Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
