9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The judgment addresses the tax liability of a non-resident firm in connection with contracts with an Indian firm, specifically focusing on whether the income tax borne by the Indian firm should be considered as income of the non-resident firm and the application of section 44BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Summary: The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred two questions to the High Court arising from an agreement between a non-resident firm and an Indian firm regarding mineral oil exploration activities. The Indian firm undertook the tax liability of the non-resident firm, leading to a dispute on the tax treatment. The Tribunal held the entire tax amount as taxable income of the non-resident firm, contrary to the contention that it should be taxed under section 44BB at ten percent. The High Court analyzed the agreement terms and relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act to determine the taxability of the amount. Dr. Pal argued that the tax paid by the Indian firm is a benefit or perquisite and should not be fully taxable due to section 44BB. Mr. Ray contended that the payment constitutes independent income. The Court examined the definitions of income, heads of income, and relevant sections to conclude that the tax liability payment is a perquisite arising from the business of oil exploration, taxable as profits of business under section 28(iv). Regarding the application of section 44BB, the Court found that only ten percent of the tax amount should be deemed as profits chargeable to tax, not the entire sum. The judgment clarified that the tax liability is a perquisite under the agreement and should be computed as per section 44BB(1). The High Court answered the questions accordingly, emphasizing the tax treatment based on the specific provisions and nature of the payment. Separate Judgment: P. C. Naik concurred with the decision and the analysis provided by G. B. Patnaik.
|
