TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 566
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha, Japan (Mitsui Japan). The applicant is paying dividend to Mitsui Japan on which dividend distribution tax (DDT) is being deducted as per the provisions of section 115-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The applicant has filed the present application on November 30, 2018 for advance ruling under section 245Q of the Act on the following questions : Question 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the dividend distribution tax (DDT) paid/payable by Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Private Limited under the provisions of section 115-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') on dividend paid/ payable to Mitsui Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha ('Mitsui Japan') is in substance and effect, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1) was also issued in this case on July 9, 2018 along with the questionnaire and thereafter another notice under section 142(1) was issued on September 5, 2018 along with another questionnaire. The learned Departmental representative has drawn our attention to the following questions in the questionnaire dated July 9, 2018 in support of the contention that the questions raised in the present application was already pending before the Assessing Officer. Question No. 21 Details of dividend income and expenses attributable for earning this income. Question No. 23 Please give explanation of the following with documentary evidence. (iii) Tax credit claimed in Income-tax return is less than tax credit available in form 26AS. (iv) Large o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otices. The notice under section 143(2) was a standard notice for complete scrutiny, without any question. Further, in the questionnaires issued along with notice under section 142(1), the questions raised in the present application were not at all involved. He assailed the contention of the Revenue that the questions raised in the present application were subject matter of questionnaires issued by the Department along with notice under section 142(1) of the Act. As regarding filing of the application under section 144A dated December 11, 2018 on the issue of refund of excessive dividend distribution tax, the learned authorised representative clarified that the said application was filed after the filing of present application before the au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was another dividend distribution tax of Rs. 40,715.389 made on February 29, 2016 which was deposited on June 6, 2016. As per this Schedule the dividend distribution tax on the dividend declared was made at 15 per cent. under section 115-O and there was no refund claim of dividend distribution tax in the return of income. Since the applicant had already deducted dividend distribution tax under section 115-O of the Act on the dividend declared at the prescribed rate, paid the taxes and no refund of dividend distribution tax was claimed in the return of income, the selection of case for scrutiny under computer aided scrutiny selection under section 143(2) could not have been on account of dividend distribution tax payment. 5. The contention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iling of the application and there was no pendency on that date. Merely because the applicant had raised the issue of excess dividend distribution tax in his subsequent letter dated November 30, 2018, it does not create any pendency of the date of application filed earlier. Thus, the questions raised in the present application is not found pending before the Income-tax authority on the date of filing of the application. 6. The hon'ble Delhi High Court has held in the case of Hyosung Corporation v. AAR [2016] 382 ITR 371 (Delhi) that a notice under section 143(2) merely asking for certain information from the assessee issued prior to filing of application before Authority for Advance Rulings will not constitute bar in terms of clause (i....