Meerut And Another v. O.n.g.c., Dehradun
High Court
24 May 2004 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · ukhcucis_pg
Parties
Meerut And Another v. O.n.g.c., Dehradun
Date of order
24 May 2004
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Meerut And Another v. O.n.g.c., Dehradun, the High Court (2004) decided the matter.
Decision: 470 of 2001 dated 30[th] September, 2003, we answer this question in the affirmative i.e. in favour of theassessee and against the Department. answer this question in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL.
I.T.A. No. 233 of 2001(Old No. 81 of 1999)
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Meerut and another
.............. Appellants
Versus
O.N.G.C., Dehradun
As representative of Mr. Nakhinov Rassim ............... Respondent
Hon. P.C. Verma, A.C.J. Hon. Rajesh Tandon, J.
Mr. S.K. Posti, learned counsel for the Tax Deptt.
Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent.
The matter is squarely covered by or decision dated 30[th ]
September, 2003 in Income Tax Appeal No. 470 of 2001; The Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut & another Vs O.N.G.C., Dehradun.
The question raised before us is as follows:
"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case
the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally
correct in directing to apply single stage grossing up of
the Tax perquisites paid by ONGC on behalf of the
assessee instead of multi stage grossing up, applied by the
Assessing Officer under section 195-A of the Income Tax
Act, 1961?"
For the reasons recorded in the above judgment in Income
Tax Appeal No. 470 of 2001 dated 30[th] September, 2003, we answer this question in the affirmative i.e. in favour of theassessee and against the Department.
answer this question in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the
Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Rajesh Tandon, J.)
(P.C. Verma, A.C.J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.