ITA/16/2021
2022 Latest Caselaw 721 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                             AT NAINITAL
                    SHRI JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.


                                       AND


                        SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE, J.

ITA NO. 16 OF 2021

11TH MARCH, 2022 Between:

M/s MI Overseas Ltd. ..Appellant.

and

Assistant Director of Income Tax, International Taxation, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. ...Respondents

Counsel for the appellant: Mr. Ajay Bohra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Chetan Joshi, learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned counsel.

Upon hearing the learned counsel, the Court made the following:

JUDGMENT : (per Sri Justice S.K. Mishra, A.C.J.)

Since Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned counsel, is

appearing on behalf of the respondent and has

received the brief on its behalf, there is no

requirement to give him a formal notice to him.

2. The appeal is admitted to determine the

following substantial questions of law:-

(a) Whether on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in

law in not appreciating the true construction of

Section 44BB of the Act?

(b) Whether on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in

law in holding that receipts of Rs.

237,92,41,737/- earned by the appellant on

account of supply of goods were to be included

in calculating the aggregate amount referred to

in sub-section (2) of Section 44BB of the Act?

(c) Whether on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in

law in holding that contracts entered into by the

appellant were composite / indivisible contracts?

(d) Whether on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in

not holding taxation of income from supply of

goods in accordance with profit attribution report

/rules / principles under the normal provisions of

the Act and not under Section 44BB?

(e) Whether on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in

not holding that receipt of Rs. 2,95,78,349 on

account of supply to Oil India Ltd., being

offshore supply of goods, is not liable to tax in

India?

3. The learned counsel for the respondent

submits that at this stage we are not required to call

for the records of the Assessing Officer or the

Appellate Authority. However, the learned counsel for

the respondent submits that he may be given some

time to file convenience-sheet. Six weeks' time is

given to him to file the same.

4. Let this matter be listed after six weeks.

____________

(S.K. MISHRA), A.C.J.

____________ R.C. KHULBE, J.

Dt: 11.03.2022 Rathour