ITA--376/2005. Case: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DENSO INDIA LIMITED. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | ITA--376/2005 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | August 31, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 66-75 + ITA 371/2005
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh with Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Advocates.
versus
DENSO INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate.
With
+ ITA 372/2005
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh with Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Advocates.
versus
DENSO INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate.
With
+ ITA 373/2005
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh with Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Advocates.
versus
DENSO INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate.
With
+ ITA 374/2005
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh with Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Advocates.
versus
DENSO INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate.
With
+ ITA 375/2005
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh with Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Advocates.
versus
DENSO INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate.
With
+ ITA 376/2005
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh with Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Advocates.
versus
DENSO INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate.
With
+ ITA 377/2005
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh with Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Advocates.
versus
DENSO INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate.
With
+ ITA 379/2005
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh with Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Advocates.
versus
DENSO INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocae.
With
+ ITA 380/2005
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh with Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Advocates.
versus
DENSO INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate.
And
+ ITA 381/2005
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh with Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Advocates.
versus
DENSO INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
O R D E R % 31.08.2017 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.
1. These are ten appeals by the Income Tax Department (‘Department’) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) directed the common order dated 2nd September 2004 passed by the Income Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA Nos. 3233 to 3242/Del/2003 Financial Years (‘FYs’) 1988-89 to 1997-98.
2. While admitting these appeals on 23rd August, 2006 this Court following question of law for consideration:
“Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had in reviewed its earlier order dated 29th January 2003 while jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
only permits rectification of error apparent on the fact of the record?”
3. The background facts are that the Respondent-Assessee was under the Companies Act, 1956. It has a manufacturing unit at Noida (Uttar Pradesh). It is an admitted position that M/s.
Corporation, Japan had, during the period under consideration, technicians to work for the Assessee at its manufacturing unit. expatriate technicians are paid salary in rupees by the Assessee apart the rent free accommodation. The salary paid was debited in the the Assessee after deducting tax.
4. A survey was conducted in the premises of the Assessee on November 1998. According to the Department, the Assessee had substantial part of the salary and allowances etc. to its expatriate in Japan and had kept this amount out of the pale of taxation in India. therefore alleged that the Assessee did not comply with Section 192 Act under which there was an obligation to deduct tax at source.
to the Department, a sum of Rs. 5,74,10,405 had been failed to be by the Assessee for the aforementioned AYs.
5. A show-cause notice (‘SCN’) dated 28th January 2000 was issued Assessee. In response thereto, the Assessee by its letters dated 2nd
and 8th February 2000 stated that after discussion with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, CBDT, CCIT and CIT-VI, Assessee had paid revised tax and interest under Section 201 (1) (a)
Act. The Assessee stated that it had no intention of concealing any or TDS. The Assessee stated that it had been advised that salary paid outside India was not liable to tax in India. The Assessee accordingly submitted that it was prevented by reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source sum paid outside India.
6. The Assessing Officer (‘AO’) passed an order dated 19th July 2000 Section 271 C of the Act holding that the Assessee had not been by any reasonable cause to comply with Section 192...
To continue reading
Request your trial