Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.22 seconds)Finance Act, 2012
M/S. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 August, 2007
"A point has been made by the assessee that as a result of this deduction
the department is realizing the tax twice on the same income. It does not
appear that this point was agitated before the Tribunal. We, however,
make it clear that if the amount of tax has already been realised from the
employees concerned directly, there cannot be any question of further
realisation of tax as the same income cannot be taxed twice. If the tax has
been realised once, it cannot be realised once again, but that does not
mean that the assessee will not be liable for payment of interest or any
other legal consequence for their failure to deduct or to pay tax in
accordance with law to the revenue." (emphasis supplied)
That such was the legal position was accepted by the Central Board of
Direct Taxes in its Circular No.275/20l/95-IT(B) dated January 29, 1997.
Reference in this behalf may also be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. v CIT, (2007)
293 ITR 226 (SC) where the same view was taken. I find that the aforesaid
settled position in law has also been legislatively recognized by insertion
of a proviso in sub-section (1) of section 201 of the Act by the Finance
Act, 2012. Thus, the settled position in law is that if the deductee/payee
has paid the tax, no recovery can be made from the person responsible for
paying of income from which he failed to deduct tax at source. In a case
where the deductee/payee has paid the tax on such income, the person
responsible for paying the income is no longer required to deduct or
deposit any tax at source.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Virgin Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. on 18 February, 2011
In the similar circumstances, I find that the first
proviso to section 40(a)(ia) inserted by the Finance Act; 2010, which has
been held to be curative and therefore, retrospective in its operation by the
Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in ITAT No. 302 of 2011, GA 3200/2011,
CIT v Virgin Creations decided on November 23, 2011 provides for
allowance of the expenditure in any subsequent year in which tax has been
deducted and deposited. The intention of the legislature clearly is not to
disallow legitimate business expenditure. The allowance of such
expenditure is sought to be made subject to deduction and payment of tax
at source. However, in a case where the deductee/payee has paid tax and
as such the person responsible for paying is no longer required to deduct
4 ITA No.145/Del./2014
or pay any tax, legitimate business expenditure would stand disallowed
since the situation contemplated by the first proviso viz. deduction and
payment of tax in a subsequent year would never come about. Such
unintended consequence has been sought to be taken care of by the second
proviso inserted in section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2012. There can
be no doubt that the second proviso was inserted to supply an obvious
omission and make the section workable. The insertion of second proviso
was explained by Memorandum Explaining The provision in Finance Bill,
2012, reported in 342 ITR (Statutes) 234 at 260 & 261, which reads as
under:-
Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 vs Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd on 26 August, 2015
The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Landmark
Township Pvt. Ltd. - 377 ITR 635 has taken the similar view.
No contrary decision was brought to my knowledge by the ld. D.R. By
respectfully following the said decision, I restore this issue to the file of the
Assessing officer with the direction that the assessee shall provide all the details
to the Assessing Officer with regard to the recipients of the income and taxes
paid by them. The Assessing Office r shall carry out necessary verification in
respect of the payments and taxes of such income and also filing the return by
the recipient. In case, the Assessing Officer finds that the recipient has duly paid
the taxes on the income, the addition made by the Assessing Officer shall stand
deleted. Thus, both the grounds no.1 & 4 are statistically allowed.
Md. Serajuddin & Ors vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 17 January, 2014
From the said Explanation 3, it is apparent that the book profit has to be the
profit as has been shown in the profit & loss account for the relevant previous
year. The profit received by the assessee on the sale of goddown amounting to
Rs.10,20,430/- was duly credited in the profit & loss account as prepared by the
assessee and is part of the net profit as has been shown in the profit & loss
account. In view of this fact, I am of the view that both the authorities below did
8 ITA No.145/Del./2014
not appreciate the provision of section 40(b)(v), Explanation 3 and mis-
interpreted definition of the book profit as given under Explanation 3 to section
40(b) of the Act. I accordingly set aside the order of the CIT (A) and delete the
disallowance made by the AO amounting to Rs.3,60,540/-. My aforesaid view is
duly supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of
Md. Serajuddin & Brothers vs. CIT - 210 taxman 84 as well as the following
decisions:-
Commissioner Of Income-Tax West Bengal ... vs J. K. Industries (Private) Ltd. on 20 May, 1968
(ii) CIT vs. J.J. Industries - (2013) (Guj.) 216 taxman 162;
Income Tax Officer vs Jamanadas Muljibhai on 27 January, 2005
(iv) ITO vs. Jamnadas Muljibhai - 99 TTJ 197 (Rajkot);