Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.41 seconds)Section 194A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 196A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India And ... on 7 December, 1970
Similar view was taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. M. P. Agro Morarji Fertilizers Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 282 (MP) and also the same High Court decisions in the case of CIT vs. Life Insurance Corporation (1987) 166 ITR 191 (MP) and in the case of CIT vs. Shri Synthetics Ltd. (1985) 151 ITR 634 (MP). This aspect of the matter was not considered by the authorities below. Until this question is considered, in our opinion, the levy of interest under s. 201(1A) does not arise. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the authorities below by which interest was levied and remit the matter back to the file of the AO to find out the actual liability of tax to be deducted by the assessee in respect of the payments made by it. While doing so the AO shall take into consideration the payment of tax already made by the different investors in respect of their receipts of interest, or the claim for exemption under s. 80L by the investors for which we hope that the assessee will cooperate with the AO. As we have already held that the assessee-company should have deducted tax at source, the appeals against the orders under s. 201(1) are dismissed. So far as the appeals against the orders under s. 201(1A) are concerned the appeals are set aside and remitted back to the AO as mentioned above.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay vs Nirlon Synthetics Fibres And Chemicals ... on 29 April, 1981
Similar view was taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. M. P. Agro Morarji Fertilizers Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 282 (MP) and also the same High Court decisions in the case of CIT vs. Life Insurance Corporation (1987) 166 ITR 191 (MP) and in the case of CIT vs. Shri Synthetics Ltd. (1985) 151 ITR 634 (MP). This aspect of the matter was not considered by the authorities below. Until this question is considered, in our opinion, the levy of interest under s. 201(1A) does not arise. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the authorities below by which interest was levied and remit the matter back to the file of the AO to find out the actual liability of tax to be deducted by the assessee in respect of the payments made by it. While doing so the AO shall take into consideration the payment of tax already made by the different investors in respect of their receipts of interest, or the claim for exemption under s. 80L by the investors for which we hope that the assessee will cooperate with the AO. As we have already held that the assessee-company should have deducted tax at source, the appeals against the orders under s. 201(1) are dismissed. So far as the appeals against the orders under s. 201(1A) are concerned the appeals are set aside and remitted back to the AO as mentioned above.
Section 80L in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 201 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Delhi Development Authority vs Income-Tax Officer on 24 January, 1995
5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the authorities below have rightly held that tax should have been deducted at source by the assessee-company under s. 194A of the Act. It was submitted that the relationship between the investor and the assessee-company cannot be said to be principal and agent because the assessee-company is taking deposits and against the said deposits the assessee-company issues certificates of investment to the investors. The assessee-company by its memorandum of agreement guarantees a fixed return of 1.5% per month to the investors. The fiduciary and custodian is appointed by the assessee-company, who is the agent of the assessee-company. In the case of investment of the funds by the fiduciary the investors have no role to play, which is entirely left to the fiduciary, i.e., to the assessee-company. According to the learned Departmental Representative under the aforesaid circumstances when the assessee-company is paying some return to the investors it may be termed by the assessee in any way, but it is nothing but interest under s. 2(28A) of the IT Act. The relationship between the assessee and the investors is only that of debtor and creditor. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders passed by the authorities below and further submitted that the decision referred to on behalf of the assessee in 52 TTJ (Del) 107 : 53 ITD 19 (supra) is not applicable on the facts of the case.