Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) V. M/s. Transbulk Shipping LLC,

ITTA/6/2014

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Director of Income Tax (International Taxation), Hyderabad against M/s. Transbulk Shipping LLC, Dubai, UAE, represented by M/s. Act Forwarders Steamer Agency, Kakinada. The appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 08.11.2012 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, which pertained to the assessment year 2006-2007. The core issue revolves around the interpretation and application of international taxation laws, specifically concerning the tax liabilities of the respondent in India. The High Court's decision to remand the case follows a precedent set in a similar case, emphasizing the need for a fresh examination of the facts and legal arguments in light of the Delhi High Court's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 744626 (HC-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Emirates Shipping Line, FZE v. Assistant Director of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PULIPATI RADHIKA
• Keywords: Delhi High Court; Income Tax; International Taxation; Remand; Tribunal
• Section: 335/Vizag/2011

Judgement Text

" THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.6 of 2014 DATED:11.2.2014 Between: Director of Income Tax (International Taxation), Hyderabad. … Appellant And M/s. Transbulk Shipping LLC, Dubai, UAE, Represented by M/s. Act Forwarders Steamer Agency, Kakinada. ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 6 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.11.2012 of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam, in I.T.A. No.335/Vizag/2011, in relation to assessment year 2006-2007. 2 . On 28.01.2014, we issued pre-admission notice to the respondent, pursuant to which, Smt. Pulipati Radhika, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent. After hearing Smt. Pulipati Radhika, learned counsel for the respondent, it appears that on identical issue, this Court has passed a judgment and order on 19.9.2013 in I.T.T.A. No. 359 of 2013 remanding the matter to the learned Tribunal for fresh enquiry. The relevant portion is set out hereunder: “It appears to us that the learned Tribunal had no chance to consider the Division Bench decision of the Delhi Court reported in case of Emirates Shipping Line, FZE v. Assistant Director of Income Tax [1][1]. According to us, this judgment has got relevancy in the issue involved in this case. We, therefore, remand the matter to the learned Tribunal for fresh enquiry keeping operation of the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal in abeyance. The learned Tribunal is directed to pass independent judgment and order considering the decision of the Delhi High Court referred to above, by us and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, without being influenced by the earlier judgment and order. In the process, the conclusion that may be arrived at, by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment and order may be same or may not be the same. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of this Judgment.” 3. Since the issue raised in this appeal is also identical, we remand this matter to the learned Tribunal for fresh enquiry keeping operation of the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal in abeyance. The learned Tribunal is directed to pass independent judgment and order considering the decision of the Delhi High Court referred to above, by us and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, without being influenced by the earlier judgment and order. In the process, the conclusion that may be arrived at, by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment and order may be same or may not be the same. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of this Judgment. The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. ________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 11.2.2014 PNB [1][1] (2012) 349 ITR 0493 "