The CIT, held that income received from BALIC was never offered to tax, the assessee is not entitled to be accorded credit of the TDS which was deposited. On writ the Court held that the view taken by the CIT is clearly misconceived since it ignores the fact that the assessee had consistently asserted that the income received from BALIC would not be taxable in India by virtue of S. 90. The CIT also fails to bear in consideration the indubitable fact that the return of the assessee for asst. AY. 2015-16 was duly processed under S. 143(3) with no additions being suggested. The position as taken by the assessee thus appears to have been duly accepted. Therefore, the CIT has clearly erred in holding that the assessee was liable to offer that income to tax before being entitled to claim the benefit of tax deducted at source. (AY. 2015-16)
Munchener Ruckversicherungs Gesellshaft Aktiengesellschaft In Munchen v.CIT (IT) (2024) 341 CTR 941 / 8 NYPCTR 1232 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 264: Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Credit for tax deducted at source-Double taxation agreement-Refund interest-Respondents are directed to refund the amount along with statutory interest forthwith. [S. 90, 155(14), 199, Form No 266AS, Art. 226]
Leave a Reply