CIT vs. Cargil Global Trading Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court)

May 29th, 2012

(314.0 KiB, 1,980 DLs)

S. 194A TDS: Discounting Charges Is Not “Interest”

 

The assessee paid Rs. 3.97 Crores to an associate concern in Singapore on account of discounted charges for getting the export sale bills discounted. The AO held that that the discounting charges was “interest” u/s 2(28A) and that as there was no TDS, the expenditure had to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(i). This was reversed by the CIT (A) and Tribunal. The High Court (335 ITR 94 (Del) included in file) relied on Circular No.65 dated 2.09.1971, Circular No.674 dated 22.03.1993 & Vijay Ship Breaking 219 CTR 639 (SC) held that as the discounting charges were not in respect of any debt incurred or money borrowed and were merely discount of the sale consideration on sale of goods, it was not “interest” u/s 2(28A) and there was no obligation to deduct TDS thereon. On appeal by the department to the Supreme Court, HELD

 

Delay condoned. The special leave petitions are dismissed.

 

For more see the contrasting views in Gujarat Gas 115 ITD 218 (Ahd)(SB) & Union Bank 14 SOT 75 (Mum) on whether interest on lease charges is “interest” for purposes of interest-tax

Related Judgements

1. MCorp Global vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

   “Sham” lease transactions cannot be given relief as “financial arrangements”.   (1) Where the AO disallowed part depreciation on bottles leased out by the assessee on the ground of “non-user” but the Tribunal & High Court confirmed the same on the ground that as the lease was not renewed…

2. Tivoli Investment and Trading Co vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

   For determining the ALV u/s 23(1)(a), the AO has to determine the fair/ reasonable rent expected to be fetched by the property. If the property is governed by the Rent Control Act, the standard rent is one of the various factors to be taken into account by the AO….

3. Avaya Global Connect vs. ACIT (1.2 MB) (ITAT Mumbai) 

   Where the assessee transferred its undertaking under a scheme of demerger which provided that neither the assessee nor its shareholders would receive any consideration from the transferee company as the value of the liabilities taken over were more than the value of the assets taken over and the assessee…

Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court |

2 Responses to “CIT vs. Cargil Global Trading Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court)”

1. vswami says:

   July 12, 2012 at 1:36 am

   Mr Editor

   The reported SC ORDER reads- “Delay condoned. The special leave petitions are dismissed.”

   As per one’s understanding, in effect, the HC’s judgment stands confirmed. However, it is unclear whether despite having condoned the delay in the filing of SLP by the Revenue, the SC has handed down no separate judgment setting out at least briefly the grounds of its decision to dismiss the SLP.

   May be, one may be confused because of having no hand on experience or exposure to the SC.

   Perhaps, Experts will have a ready answer so as to providing enlightenment on the point of doubt.

   Reply
2. vswami says:

   July 13, 2012 at 2:05 am

   @vswami
   No clarification has been forthcoming on the point of doubt raised. As such, one is obliged to proceed on the premise that except the reported single sentence Order, there is no separate judgment delivered by the SC.
   Be that as it may, a very pertinent but perplexing, rather annoying, question, is seen to arise, albeit not for the first time, the aftermath of the reported case: The HC has , in disapproving of the Revenue’s stance, categorically held to the effect that the point of dispute stands clinched, and finally concluded, against the Revenue by, – the CBDT’s own circulars, Circular No.65 dated 2.09.1971 and Circular No.674 dated 22.03.1993; more so, by the apex court’s ruling in re. Vijay Ship Breaking (219 CTR 639). If so, the poser is, – why the dispute, being on a point not, by any reasoning, ‘referable’ or ‘appeal-able’ as envisaged by the law / within its legal meaning, came to permitted to travel beyond the stage of the Tribunal.
   This is an aspect which undoubtedly calls for a sincere and devoted deliberation. And requires to be addressed on a war-footing, by everyone truly concerned; particularly, by those who have been openly crying foul against the proliferation of inherently infectious and fruitless litigation. What ought to be made a conscious note of is the reality that it is the galloping rise in the quantum of court cases that is found to adversely impact the quality of, besides alarmingly decelerating, the profound adjudication / administration of justice.

   Reply