The petitioner is a non-resident company, incorporated under the laws of Denmark. The reasons for rejecting the prayer made in the petitioner’s application are contained in the order dated. Quite obviously, the petitioner’s prayer has been rejected. The impugned certificate, however, pegs the rate of tax at 9.99%. The petitioner had sought a certificate, at “NIL” rate of tax.ģ. The record shows, that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for being granted lower withholding tax certificate. To be noted, the Financial Year (FY) in issue is FY 2021-2022.Ģ. The said order, according to the petitioner, was received on. This writ petition is directed against the lower withholding tax certificate dated, and the undated order which is marked as Annexure-I and appended on page 278 of the case file. We are of the view that the best way forward would be to set aside the impugned certificate and the order, with a direction to the concerned officer, to revisit the application, in the light of what is indicated hereinabove.įULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURTġ. It would have been another matter, if the concerned officer had, on facts, distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court. According to us, as long as the judgment of the Supreme Court is in force, the concerned authority could not have side stepped the judgment, based on the fact that the review petition had been preferred. The concerned officer has simply by-passed the judgement of the Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis by observing that the revenue has preferred a review petition, and that the same is pending adjudication. Quite obviously, the petitioner’s prayer has been rejected.Ĭonclusion- In our view, the impugned order does not deal with the core issue which arose for consideration, and was the basis on which the application had been preferred by the petitioner under Section 197 of the Act. The petitioner had sought a certificate, at “NIL” rate of tax. Such approach of officer is untenable.įacts- The petitioner is a non-resident company, incorporated under the laws of Denmark. Milestone Systems A/S Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court)ĭelhi High Court directed the concerned officer to revisit the application preferred under section 197 of the Income Tax Act as the concerned officer simply by-passed the Supreme Court judgement in Engineering Analysis by observing that revenue has preferred a review petition.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |