Back
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (CHENNAI BENCH)
GEORGE GEORGE K, Vice President, INTURI RAMA RAO, Accountant Member
ESAB India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay and common issues in appeals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. factual background: ddt payment and ao rejection. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. assessee arguments: ddt as shareholder tax. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. dtaa prevails over domestic ddt provisions. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. appeals allowed with refund directions. (Para 12) |
आदेश/ORDER
PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:
These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, both dated 23.06.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2016-17 & 2019-20.
2. There is a delay of 117 days in filing the appeals. The assessee has filed affidavits seeking condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of appeals. It was submitted that the issues involved in the appeal pertain to non-resident parties and international tax implications, which necessitated detailed internal deliberations and obtaining approvals from multiple stakeholders, including foreign entities. The said process, being time-consuming, resulted in the delay in filing the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
