Delhi High Court - Orders
Spicejet Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 18 December, 2024
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma, Dharmesh Sharma
$~70
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 17285/2024 & CM APPL. 73595/2024 (Interim Stay)
SPICEJET LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mayank Nagi, Mrs. Husnal
Syali Nagi & Mr. Tarun Singh,
Advs.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL
CIRCLE 1 DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with
Mr. Pranjal Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
ORDER
% 18.12.2024
1. Notice. Since the respondent is represented by Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel, let a reply be filed within a period of two weeks. The petitioner shall have a week therefrom to file a rejoinder affidavit.
2. We take note of the following and penultimate conclusion which has come to be recorded in the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] dated 31 August 2024 and which reads as follows:-
"6. The reply of the assessee has been perused and is not found tenable as the assessee company has failed to provide copies of invoices, agreements etc in support of services provided by the foreign vendors. Further, the assessee company has claimed that the repair work of aircrtaft has been carried outside India. However, no evidence in support of the above claim has been submitted by the assessee company regarding the aircraft being sent to foreign land for repair work. Similarily, in respect of engineering software called "AMOS", the assessee company has submitted that they have purchased tailor made software. However, no evidence regarding the same has been furnished by the assessee.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/12/2024 at 22:31:37 Lastly, in respect of the lease rent paid for the aircraft the assessee company has stated that the company leasing the aircraft has no presence in India and lease payment is not covered in the definition of royalty. However, it is important to note here that the aircrafts has been used in India, used by the people of India, have presence in India. Therefore, lease rent paid by the resident to non- resident will be income accruing or arising in India on which assessee company was liable to deduct TDS u/s 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the submission of the assessee company is not acceptable."
3. The aspect of taxability in respect of aircraft maintenance and service as well as leases executed in connection therewith presently forms subject matter of our consideration in a batch of writ petitions led by SMBC Aviation Capital Ltd. (Formerly known as RBS Aerospace Limited) v. Deputy Commissioner Income-Tax Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation & Ors. [W.P.(C) 13462/2019]
4. We take note of the interim order of protection which operates therein dated 24 December 2019.
5. Accordingly, let this matter stand tagged with the aforesaid matter, to be called again on the date already fixed i.e. 31.01.2025.
6. In the meanwhile and following the interim order that operates in SBMC Aviation proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice issued under Section 148 dated 31 August 2024 for Assessment Year 2018- 19 shall remain stayed until the next date of listing.
YASHWANT VARMA, J DHARMESH SHARMA, J DECEMBER 18, 2024 Ch This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/12/2024 at 22:31:37