SC delivers split verdict on income tax appeal involving foreign firm
The case involved foreign drilling companies, including Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd.
The bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, delivered divergent opinions on the legal interpretation of Sections 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
These provisions relate to the timelines and procedures for assessment in cases involving non-resident assessees.
The dispute centred on whether the time period provided under Section 144C for the issuance of draft assessment orders should be treated independently or subsumed within the overall limitation period prescribed under Section 153 for completing assessments.
Justice Nagarathna rejected the appeal of the revenue department and concluded that the high court was correct in holding that assessment proceedings initiated under Section 144C in these cases were time-barred, as the final orders could not be passed within the extended deadline of September 30, 2021.
However, Justice Sharma allowed the Revenue's appeals, holding that Sections 144C and 153 operate in a coordinated manner and must be interpreted harmoniously.
He noted that rigid interpretation of timelines under Section 153 could result in a denial of fair opportunity to the assessees and breach the principles of natural justice.
With the judges delivering conflicting decisions, the matter would now be placed before the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side for taking appropriate directions of listing the matter before a larger bench.
The pleas arose from a batch of petitions filed by non-resident assessees before the Bombay High Court, which were allowed via a common judgment dated August 4, 2023.
The assessees, engaged in offshore drilling activities, had opted out of the presumptive taxation scheme under Section 44BB for the assessment year 2014–15 and declared significant losses in their returns.
The Revenue's challenge to these decisions brought the matter before the apex court.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Karnataka high court rejects I-T appeal against Sony India Software Centre
Bengaluru: Karnataka high court has dismissed an appeal filed by the income tax (I-T) department against Sony India Software Centre Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru, in a case involving tax treatment of free assets and foreign consultancy payments. The appeal challenged a June 12, 2024 order of the I-T commissioner (appeals), Bengaluru, which had partly allowed the company's challenge to its assessment for the financial year 2016-17 (assessment year 2017-18). That order was later upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bengaluru, on Dec 13, 2024. At the centre of the dispute were two additions made by the assessing officer. The first, of more than Rs 1.4 crore, concerned assets received by the company from its overseas associated enterprises without cost. The second, a disallowance of nearly Rs 9.6 lakh, related to payments made to Singapore-based JL Services and Consultancy for employee workshops, allegedly without deduction of tax at source (TDS). You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru | Gold Rates Today in Bengaluru | Silver Rates Today in Bengaluru Sony India Software Centre had declared an income of Rs 40.1 crore under "profits and gains from business" and "income from other sources" in its AY 2017-18 return. The assessing officer increased this to Rs 44.8 crore by adding the value of the assets and disallowing the consultancy fee. The company argued that the assets were prototypes supplied solely for testing and were not income under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. It also maintained that the payments to the Singapore firm were for independent personal services and were exempt from TDS under the India–Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The CIT(A) accepted both arguments. It ruled that the fixed asset addition was unwarranted as the assets were covered under an Advance Pricing Agreement and depreciation had been factored in. The I-T department contended that the workshops did involve technical services and that TDS should have been deducted under Section 195. A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi rejected this view, noting there was no dispute that the free assets were returned and that the workshops were general training sessions for staff, without transfer of technical know-how. Finding no grounds to interfere, the court upheld the earlier orders and dismissed the appeal. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Happy Krishna Janmashtami Wishes ,, messages , and quotes !
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Same sex couple moves HC against gift tax rules
Mumbai: A has moved the Bombay High Court challenging the Income Tax Act's differential treatment on taxation of gifts between spouses. The plea filed by the couple sought to declare the term 'spouse' appearing in the explanation to the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act as unconstitutional as it excludes same sex couples from the scope and definition of the term 'spouse'. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, any money, property, or asset received without adequate consideration, valued at over Rs 50,000, is taxed as 'income from other sources'. However, the fifth proviso to the section exempts such gifts when received from 'relatives', including 'spouses'. The term 'spouse' is not separately defined in the Act. A bench of Justices B P Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla on Aug 14 said the plea challenges the constitutional validity of a provision of law and issued notice to the Attorney General of India. Ashish K Singh, managing partner of law firm Capstone Legal said that for such a prayer to be granted, an expansive reading of the word 'spouse' is required to be considered by the court. The court posted the matter for hearing on Sep 18. The petition also sought a declaration extending the benefit of the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act to the petitioners who claim to be in a long-term, stable same sex relationship. It also sought a relief to include same sex couples under the definition of 'spouse' in the provision. The plea said same sex couples who are in a long-term and stable relationship are in the same position as heterosexual couples which would be presumed to be in a marriage. PTI
New Indian Express
4 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Supreme court dismisses Pernod Ricard's plea against use of ‘Pride' by another distillery
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court recently dismissed Pernod Ricard India's appeal seeking to block a smaller rival from selling London Pride whisky, dealing a blow to the liquor giant's efforts to monopolise the word Pride in India's booming spirits market. The apex court upheld the decisions of two lower courts, refusing to grant an interim injunction against the rival whisky brand in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. The judgment, arising from Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025, stems from a legal battle initiated by Pernod Ricard against Karanveer Singh Chhabra. Pernod Ricard, the maker of popular brands Blenders Pride (₹1,700 crore annual sales) and Imperial Blue (₹2,700 crore), had alleged that the Chhabra's London Pride whisky was not only phonetically and visually similar to their registered marks, but also that its packaging and trade dress were a colourable imitation of their established brands. The company argued that the use of the word 'PRIDE' in London Pride was a deliberate attempt to piggyback on the immense goodwill and reputation of their brand Blenders Pride, which has been in extensive use since 1995. However, the Commercial Court in Indore and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had both previously rejected Pernod Ricard's application for an interim injunction, a decision now affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's detailed analysis found no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' concurrent findings. The court's reasoning centred on the core principle of trademark law: the likelihood of confusion in the mind of an average consumer. While acknowledging this principle, the court determined that the rival marks were not "deceptively similar." The judgment noted that the overall visual appearance, phonetic structure, and trade dress of the two products, despite sharing some generic elements like the colours blue and gold, were sufficiently distinct.
