SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 1163

SURYA KANT, M. M. SUNDRESH
Singapore Airlines Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
C. I. T. Delhi – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shekhar Prit Jha, AOR Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, AOR Mr. Rahul Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR

JUDGMENT :

SURYA KANT, J.

1. The question that arises for our consideration pertains to the interpretation of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”) as introduced by the Finance Act, 2001, with effect from 01.04.2000. The provision requires deduction of tax at source (“TDS”) at 10% plus surcharge from payments falling under the definition of “Commission” or “Brokerage” under the Section.

(A) THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY

2. Within the aviation industry during the relevant period, the base fare1 [“Base Fare”] for air tickets was set by the International Air Transport Association (“IATA”) with discretion provided to airlines to sell their tickets for a net fare lower than the Base Fare, but not higher.2 [“Net Fare”] In essence, the IATA set the ceiling price for how much airlines may charge their customers. This formed part of the IATA’s overall responsibility of overseeing the functioning of the industry.

3. The air carriers were also required to provide a fare list to the Director General of Civil Aviation (“DGCA”) for approval. The prices that were rubber stamped by the DGCA


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top