9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aware that, as per Section 90 it is entitled to the benefit of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Mauritius - HELD THAT:- The rejection is not on the merits of the application but on the grounds that the petitioner could have filed a revised return or presented an appeal under Section 248 of the Income Tax Act. As regards the option of filing a revised return, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the time limit for filing such revised return expired. In any event, when a statute prescribes a remedy, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of availing of such remedy merely because an alternative remedy may be available. This can, no doubt, be done if the remedy is discretionary but not if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Income Tax Act) was rejected. The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing IT and IT enabled services. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-2019 on 29.11.2018 by admitting the total income of Rs. 12,65,47,680/-. During the financial year corresponding to the assessment year mentioned above, the petitioner declared and paid dividend of Rs. 59,12,76,400/- to its holding company, M/s.Predictive Analytics Mauritius Holding Limited (PAMHL), which is a company incorporated in Mauritius. In respect of such dividend, the petitioner paid Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) of Rs. 12,03,69,962/-. Based on the petitioner's return, by order dated 13.06.2019, DDT was ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r committed in the return, learned counsel submits that the revision should not have been rejected on the grounds contained therein. In support of this contention, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Hapag Lloyd India (P) Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2022) 139 Taxmann.com 128 (Bombay). By placing reliance on paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment, learned counsel submits that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is wide enough to embrace the petitioner's grievance and that it was wrongly rejected. 4. Mr.B.Ramana Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appears on behalf of the respondents. In all fairness, he submits that Section 248 of the Income Tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Act, it is evident that it applies to a case where the tax deducted on payments made under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act to a non-resident, other than by way of interest, is required to be borne by the person by whom the income is payable (i.e. the person making the payment) as per contract or arrangement between the parties and the person making the deduction claims that tax was not payable. The case on hand pertains to the declaration and distribution of dividend by the petitioner, a company, to its shareholders and the tax payable thereon. This was not a case where a deduction was made under Section 195 towards tax on payments made to a non-resident and the parties had agreed that the deducting resident entity would bear the tax l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
