9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether M/s. Schreiner Airways was an agent of M/s. Inter Aviation Service Co. for taxation purposes. 2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision on the lack of business connection and payments between M/s. Schreiner and M/s. Inter Aviation Service Co. in India was correct. Analysis: The case involved an application filed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, raising questions regarding the agency relationship between M/s. Schreiner Airways and M/s. Inter Aviation Service Co. The Revenue contended that M/s. Schreiner Airways acted as an agent for M/s. Inter Aviation Service Co. and should be liable for income tax under sections 9(1) and 163 of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer initially upheld this contention, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disagreed, stating that no activities were conducted in India between the two companies, and thus, M/s. Schreiner Airways could not be considered an agent of M/s. Inter Aviation Service Co. for taxation purposes. Subsequently, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's findings, emphasizing the lack of business connection and payments between the companies in India. The Tribunal concluded that M/s. Schreiner could not be deemed an agent of M/s. Inter Aviation Service Co. A certificate submitted during the appeal process further supported the absence of activities in India between the companies. The Department's appeal to the Tribunal was dismissed, leading to the current application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. The High Court noted that the determination of whether M/s. Schreiner Airways was an agent of M/s. Inter Aviation Service Co. was a factual finding based on inferences drawn from the case's facts. As such, no question of law arose under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. Additionally, referencing a Supreme Court decision, the Court highlighted that income earned as commission by a non-resident company outside India cannot be taxed in India. Consequently, the Court rejected the Department's application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, finding no merit in the Department's arguments.
|
