SURYA KANT, M. M. SUNDRESH
Singapore Airlines Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
C. I. T. Delhi – Respondent
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
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Commissioner of Income Tax VS Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association
Director, Prasar Bharati v. CIT
Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal and Sons Ltd. vs. The Government of Hyderabad
Gordon Woodroffe and Co. vs. Sheikh M.A. Majid and Co. 1966 Supp SCR 1 – Relied [Para 23]
Khedut Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Society vs. State of Gujarat
Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. STO, Bhopal
Qamar Shaffi Tyabji vs. The Commissioner, Excess Profits Tax, Hyderabad
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.