Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd.,, ... vs The Dy. Cit, Gandhinagar Circle,, ... on 11 October, 2023
Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. vs. DCIT
& DCIT vs. Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.97 seconds)Mr. Saleem Thangal Kader Palkad, Udupi vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 18 August, 2022
In view of the above discussion we remit this issue back to the
AO with a direction to verify the reversal of the provision made as on
31.03.2012 and the status of liability to pay interest on the CCDs in
subsequent periods and decide the allowability in the light of the
decision in the case of Biocon Ltd. (supra). Needless to mention that
the assessee may be given opportunity of being heard. It is ordered
accordingly.
M/S. Ozone Properties Private Limited, ... vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 18 August, 2022
In view of the above discussion we remit this issue back to the
AO with a direction to verify the reversal of the provision made as on
31.03.2012 and the status of liability to pay interest on the CCDs in
subsequent periods and decide the allowability in the light of the
decision in the case of Biocon Ltd. (supra). Needless to mention that
the assessee may be given opportunity of being heard. It is ordered
accordingly.
M/S. Volvo Group India Private Limited ... vs Income Tax Officer (Osd) Large Tax ... on 25 August, 2022
A plain reading of above provision clearly shows that the person
responsible to pay the interest is liable to deduct tax at source at the
time of credit or payment, whichever is earlier. It is pertinent to note
that the section uses the term "any income by way of interest". The
interest payment may constitute expenditure in the hands of the person
making the payment, while it may constitute income in the hands of
the payee/recipient. Since the section uses the term "any income by
way of interest", in our view, it should be viewed from the angle of the
recipient/payee and not from the angle of the person making the
payment. Accordingly, the accounting/tax treatment given by the
payer in respect of interest paid by him may not be relevant at all for
the purposes of sec. 194A of the Act. So long as the interest amount
constitutes "income" in the hands of recipient, the payer shall be liable
to deduct tax at source on the interest amount so paid. Accordingly,
even if the payer has disallowed the expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the
Act or did not claim the same as expenditure at all, he shall still be
liable to deduct tax at source u/s 194A of the Act on the interest
amount so paid, if the said payment is liable for tax deduction at
source. We notice that the Mumbai bench of Tribunal, in the case of
Pfizer Ltd (supra) did not consider the express provisions contained in
sec. 194A of the Act. Further we notice that the provisions of sec.
40(a)(ia) does not override the provisions of sec. 201 of the Act. We
notice that provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) do not provide for absolute
disallowance as in the case of say, sec. 40A(3) of the Act. The amount
disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) in one year can be claimed as deduction in the
year in which the TDS provisions are complied with. Thus, in our
view, the provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) provide only for deferment of the
allowance and it does not provide for absolute disallowance. The
objective of sec. 40(a)(ia) appears to be to compel the assessee to
deduct tax at source in order to claim the relevant expenditure as
deduction."
Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Bharat Forge Ltd.,, Pune on 3 January, 2023
14. On carefully perusal of the above CBDT Circular, it would be
cleared that the interest paid by the resident in respect of loan that
was incurred or money borrowed utilized for the purpose of making
or earning any income from outside India is not taxable in India. In
the present case, it is not disputed that FCCBs to the extent of
Rs.12.5 millions USD were utilized for the purpose of making
investments in share of overseas subsidiaries or on the loans given
to overseas subsidiaries. No doubt, the redemption premium
partakes interest as defined u/s 2(28A) of the Act, however, by
virtue of exclusive clause of the provisions of section 9(1)(v), the
interest income in the hands of recipient cannot be said to have
accrued or arisen in India. When the income has not arisen in India
in the hands of recipient/non-resident, there is no obligation on the
part of the respondent-assessee to deduct tax at source on payment
of interest as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE
India Technology Cen. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 327 ITR 456 (SC)
followed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT, 383 ITR
59 (Karnataka). We find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is in
consonance with the legal position discussed above. Therefore, the
order of the ld. CIT(A) is just, proper and reasoned order. Thus, we
do not find any reason to interfere with order of the ld. CIT(A).
Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited, ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 3 February, 2023
20.7 The assessee further submitted to the fact that on mere
creation of provision based on estimate, no income could have been
accrued in the hands of the payee/ deductee and hence, there could be
no liability to deduct tax. Reliance in this regard is placed by the ld. A.R
on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Karnataka
Power Transmission Corporation Ltd vs. DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com
259 wherein it was held that no liability to deduct tax at source shall
arise till the sum is chargeable to tax in India.
M/S Volvo India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs Income Tax Officer(Tds) Ltu, Bangalore on 29 July, 2022
4. The ld. AR submitted that the issue cannot be remanded to the
AO as the assessee is not an assessee in default since the year end
provisions are not made party wise as per the ratio laid down in the
jurisdictional High Court in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission
Corporation Ltd. (supra). The ld AR also submitted that when there is
no liability towards 201(1) then the question of levy of interest
u/s.201(1A) would not arise.
Vodafone Cellular Limited vs Coimbatore on 23 June, 2023
4.4.4 The appellant has relied on the decision of the
Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Karnataka
Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. DCIT [(2016)
67 taxmann.com 259 (Karnataka)] wherein it was held that
where the assessee has made provision towards contingent
payment of interest on belated payment to its suppliers but
has never paid the amount to the suppliers and has thereby
made corresponding entries in the books of accounts, there
would be no liability to deduct tax under Section 194A of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 on such amount as no income is
9
Appeal No.: ST/41520/2013-DB
accrued to the suppliers; the decision has also held that
the term "income" would include actual receipt of income
and not mere provisions created in the books of account
which are subsequently reversed.
1