2024 (1) TMI 614

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing IT and IT enabled services. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-2019 on 29.11.2018 by admitting the total income of Rs. 12,65,47,680/-. During the financial year corresponding to the assessment year mentioned above, the petitioner declared and paid dividend of Rs. 59,12,76,400/- to its holding company, M/s.Predictive Analytics Mauritius Holding Limited (PAMHL), which is a company incorporated in Mauritius. In respect of such dividend, the petitioner paid Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) of Rs. 12,03,69,962/-. Based on the petitioner's return, by order dated 13.06.2019, DDT was assessed by the 2nd respondent as being payable @ 20.36%. Subsequently, the petition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....been rejected on the grounds contained therein. In support of this contention, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Hapag Lloyd India (P) Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2022) 139 Taxmann.com 128 (Bombay). By placing reliance on paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment, learned counsel submits that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is wide enough to embrace the petitioner's grievance and that it was wrongly rejected. 4. Mr.B.Ramana Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appears on behalf of the respondents. In all fairness, he submits that Section 248 of the Income Tax Act may not be applicable in respect of an alleged error in the return regarding the rate at ....