Section 155(14A) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section 155(14A), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
Kern Enterprise Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
My client's New Zealand company filed Indian returns and paid tax believing its place of effective management was in India, and New Zealand has since taxed the same income. Can it get the Indian tax back?
Yes, on these facts. The Madras High Court quashed the order refusing rectification and refund, holding that CBDT Circular No. 8 of 2017 — under which section 6(3)(ii) does not apply to a company with turnover or gross receipts of Rs 50 crore or less in a financial year — is binding on the Department, so the company was not liable to Indian tax at all and the tax it had paid ought to have been refunded, with the Court adding that tax paid in excess must be refunded notwithstanding the procedure in section 155(14A) where the income was taxed in a foreign country.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.
