Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.32 seconds)Section 201 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 August, 2007
3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts in allowing
relief to the assessee relying on decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola
Beverages Ltd. Vs. CIT (93 ITR 226) in ignoring that the ratio
of this decision is not applicable in this case as M/s IISPL
was only a mediator for and not the ultimate recipient of rent
and discharging of tax liability by the ultimate recipient of
rent has not been examined by the Ld. CIT(Appeal)."
Section 194C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd.,, ... vs The Acit.,(Osd)Range-1,, Ahmedabad on 19 October, 2022
6.1 Thus, in terms of the aforesaid agreement, on taking over business
of IISPL , the latter allowed the use of various facilities registered in its name
including the tenanted premises taken by it, on actual payment basis . In nutshell,
all the payments in terms of the agreement were remitted to the various parties
by IISPL on behalf of the assessee company on actual payment basis. The
6 ITA no. 5003/Del./2012
assessee deducted tax at source in terms of provisions of section 194 C of the
Act even on the amount of reimbursement on actual basis to IISPL, by way of
abundant caution and not u/s 194I of the Act, there being no sub tenancy
agreement between assessee and IISPL in respect of any of the premises. The
AO was of the opinion that tax was required to deducted at source in terms of
provisions of sec. 194I of the Act from payments made by assesse to IISPLwhile
the assessee claimed that it did not occupy the premises as a tenant or sub-
tenant and reimbursed the actual amount paid by IISPL to its landlords. On
appeal, since the IISPL had paid tax in pursuance to return filed on 27th
February, 2010 for the year under consideration, the ld. CIT(A) relying upon
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola
Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT,293 ITR 226(SC);Karnavati Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs.
DCIT,134 ITD 486(Ahmedabad),Expeditors International India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Addl.
CIT,2 ITR(Trib.)153(Del.) and Circular No.275/201/95-IT(B) dated January 29,
1997, cancelled the demand for TDS as also interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act, the
assessee being not a tenant or sub-tenant of the aforesaid 13 premises. The ld.
CIT(A) found that the IISPL i.e. Adma Solutions Pvt. Ltd. discharged its entire
tax liability and there was no such tenancy or sub-tenancy agreement between
them. It was also noticed that the premises which were utilized by the assessee
in terms of the facility agreement dated 1.12.2008 were actually taken on rent by
Infovision Information Services Pvt. Ltd. and the due tax was deducted at source
by Infovision Information Services Pvt. Ltd. from the rent payments. The
assessee being not a tenant or sub tenant in respect of the said premises, actual
amount of rent paid by Infovision Information Services Pvt. Ltd. alone was
reimbursed for use of facility. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) concluded that the
assessee was under no legal obligation to deduct tax at source & therefore, no
interest was chargeable for non deduction of tax at source. The Revenue have
not placed before us any material, suggesting that the assessee had any interest
either as a lessee or sub-lessee or a tenant in any of the aforesaid 13 premises.
The fact that the assessee was allowed use of premises by IISPL in terms of
agreement dated 1.12.2008, cannot lead to the conclusion that the assessee had
7 ITA no. 5003/Del./2012
any interest as a lessee, sub-lessee or tenant over the various premises. The
right to use any land or building necessarily implies that the assessee must have
some interest in the immovable property as a tenant. The existence of a landlord-
tenant relationship or a licensor-licensee is a must before a payment in question
can be termed as a rent. In the instant case, no such material is evident from the
order of the AO nor the ld. DR brought to our notice any such material
,evidencing existence of a landlord-tenant relationship or a licensor-licensee.
Section 271C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S. Syndicate Bank Staff Co-Op. ... vs Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru on 3 January, 2023
The appellant
has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the
case of Karnavati Co-op Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (134 ITD 486) wherein
the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi "F" Bench in the case of
Expeditors International India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Addl. CP' [(2010) (2 ITR
(Trib.) 153 (Delhi)] has been referred to. It has been held that
where certain charges were reimbursed by the assessee and the
charges being in the nature of reimbursement, the same were not
liable to deduction of tax at source as it would tantamount to double
deduction of tax at source on the same payment. Since the TDS
was originally deducted by Infovision Information Services Pvt. Ltd.
from the payment of rent made to the owners of the premises and
the appellant has actually reimbursed the rental expenses, the
appellant was under no legal obligation to deduct tax at source in
view of the rationale laid down in the decisions cited supra.
Consequently, no interest is chargeable for non deduction of tax at
source and the interest of `.5,39,229/- charged by the AO is
cancelled."
Section 194J in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Eli Lilly & Co. India Pvt. Ltd. on 25 March, 2011
"6.2. The AO has worked out the short deduction of ``40,38,830/-
and interest chargeable u/s 201(lA) of `.5,39,229/- on the payments
made to Infovision Information Services Pvt. Ltd. under the facility
agreement executed between the assessee and the above payee
company. From the submissions of the appellant in para 2.1.5, it is
revealed that the appellant had paid facility charges mainly rent in
respect of 13 premises as per copy of agreement filed before the
AO, which were taken in the name of Infovision information Service
Pvt. Ltd. As per the certificate of incorporation dated 31.03.2009
(page 36 of the paper book), the name of Infovision Information
Service Pvt. Ltd. has been changed to Adma Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Adma Solutions Pvt. Ltd. has filed its return of income for A.Y.
2009-10 on 27.02.2010 declaring total income of `44.36 crores and
has paid taxes by way of TDS of `.3,57,03,657/- and self
assessment tax of `.7,84,61,315/- as per copy of acknowledgement
filed at page 35 of the paper book. The assessment order u/s
143(3) of the Act has been passed by the DCIT Circle-l(l), New
Delhi, in this case for A.Y. 2009-10, a copy of which has also been
filed in the paper book. It has been held by the Hon'bIe Superne
Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (293
ITR 226) that the Circular No.275/201/95-IT(B) dated January
29,1997, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, should put
an end to the controversy. The Circular declares that "no demand
visualized under section 201 (1) of the Income-tax Act should be
enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in-charge of
TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee.
However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under
section 201 (lA) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the
deductee assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of
the Income-tax Act. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Eli Lilly and Co. India Pvt.
Ltd. (312 ITR 225) holding that once the deductees have paid taxes
on their salary income by way of self assessment tax, tax could not
be recovered from the employers under section 201(1) of the Act. I
have gone through the other judicial rulings relied upon by the
learned counsel which support the case of appellant on this issue.
Since Adma Solutions Pvt. Ltd. has discharged its entire tax liability
4 ITA no. 5003/Del./2012
by way of TDS and self assessment tax, no demand on account of
non deduction of TDS can be further enforced. Therefore, the AO
was not justified in raising the TDS demand of `.40,38,830/- for non
deduction of Tax in respect of amount of rent reimbursed to Adma
Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the demand of TDS of
`.40,38,830/ - is cancelled and appellant gets a relief of
`.40,38,830/-. The only dispute remains regarding charging of
interest. In the paper book, the appellant ahs filed copies of TDS
certificates issued by Infovision Information Services Pvt. Ltd.
establishing the fact that the premises which were utilized by the
appellant under facility agreement were taken on rent by Infovision
Information Services Pvt. Ltd. and the due tax was deducted at
source by Infovision Information Services Pvt. Ltd. from the rent
payments. The appellant is neither tenant nor sub tenant in respect
of the said premises but the actual amount of rent paid by Infovision
Information Services Pvt. Ltd. has been reimbursed.
Dcit, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi vs Honeywell International (India) Pvt. ... on 24 May, 2021
The appellant
has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the
case of Karnavati Co-op Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (134 ITD 486) wherein
the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi "F" Bench in the case of
Expeditors International India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Addl. CP' [(2010) (2 ITR
(Trib.) 153 (Delhi)] has been referred to. It has been held that
where certain charges were reimbursed by the assessee and the
charges being in the nature of reimbursement, the same were not
liable to deduction of tax at source as it would tantamount to double
deduction of tax at source on the same payment. Since the TDS
was originally deducted by Infovision Information Services Pvt. Ltd.
from the payment of rent made to the owners of the premises and
the appellant has actually reimbursed the rental expenses, the
appellant was under no legal obligation to deduct tax at source in
view of the rationale laid down in the decisions cited supra.
Consequently, no interest is chargeable for non deduction of tax at
source and the interest of `.5,39,229/- charged by the AO is
cancelled."
1