9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Single Judge's order dated 18.11.2022 whereby, Assessee's W.P.No.10523/2022 (TIT) having been favoured, relief has been accorded. The operative portion of the order reads as under: "(iv) W.P.No.10523/2022 is hereby allowed; (v) The impugned Certificate at Annexure-Q in Form-3 dated 06.01.2021 issued by 1st Respondent-Principal Commissioner as well as the impugned orders at Annexure-T dated 13.07.2021 and Annexure-U dated 01.04.2022 are hereby quashed. vi) The respondents are directed to issue fresh Form-3 in favour of the petitioner in terms of Form-1 submitted by the petitioner after carrying out necessary rectifications/revisions/modifications as sought for by the petitioner in its representations/requests as expeditiously as pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder, the Assessee filed Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the same came to be partly allowed vide order dated 24.09.2014. This order was carried in appeal both by the Assessee and the Revenue. During the pendency of this appeal, the Assessing Officer passed order dated 19.1.2015 giving effect to the order of the Commissioner. Thereafter, The Tribunal vide order dated 7.9.2018 favoured Assessee's Appeal and negatived that of the Revenue. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 4.1.2019 gave effect to the ITAT order. 3.3. The Revenue preferred Appeal against the ITAT order before the Bombay High Court. During its pendency, the DTVSV Act came into force and the Assessee filed declaration in Form 1 on 2.4.2020 before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeals before the Bombay High Court. Therefore, the 'disputed tax' means the income tax including surcharge and cess payable by the petitioner should appeal be decided in favour of the Revenue i.e., against the Assessee. 4.2. Before the First Appellate Authority, the Assessee had raised a two fold argument for attacking disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the IT Act viz (i) the freight charges payable to non-residents outside India are not chargeable tax in India, hence, the Assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source under the Act and (ii) without prejudice, those payees of freight charges who are residents of Singapore, UAE & Turkey, as per India's Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements with the said countries, the aforesaid freight canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me] 2009-10 42,92,10,516 14,58,88,654 In that view of the matter, learned Single Judge at paragraph 22 rightly observed: "It is significant to note that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer giving effect to the orders of the ITAT confirm the aforesaid facts and figures. Accordingly, as per Section 2(1)(o)(i), the tax arrears mean the disputed tax and as per the table given in Section 3(1) read with the first proviso thereunder, the Petitioner has to pay 50% of tax arrears..." That figure would be Rs.7,29,44,327/-. Therefore, at para 23, he rightly recorded the following finding. "It is therefore clear that the impugned Certificates and orders passed by the respondents demanding much higher sums from the petitioner are cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
