Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 194H in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 194I in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 39 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. vs Ito, Tds Range-7 on 13 July, 2005
3.1. In response, the assessee replied that they did not deduct tax
at source from payment to dealers since it depended upon and
nature of incentives and transactions were principal to principal and
that they deducted tax at source only on payment to Retail Sales
Personnel (RSP). The assessee pleaded that since the automobile
industry was highly competitive, various discounts and incentives
given to the dealers on a month to month basis through the retailer
bulletins were debited to the P&L Account under the head ' Incentive
to dealers' and TDS provisions were not applicable to dealers'
incentive, being not commission. However, the AO did not accept the
submissions of the assessee on the ground that incentive was paid
to the dealers post invoice i.e. after the sale of the vehicle to the
dealer and was not part of the profit margin of the dealer but was
attributable to increased sale made by the dealer and therefore, the
2
ITA nos.2068 & 2069/Ahd/2010
payment was nothing but commission to the dealers and hence the
provisions of section 194-H were attracted. Besides, while referring
to decisions in Kerala State Stamp Vendors Association. vs Office Of
The Accountant-general And Others, 282 ITR 7(Kerala) and M/s
Hindustan Coca-cola Beverages (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, 97 ITD 105 and
after analyzing the monthwise breakup of incentive / discount to
dealers / employees of dealers in the light of documents relating to
incentives furnished by the assessee and referred to in his order ,
the AO concluded that the assessee hired vehicles for transporting
their employees and thus, the provisions of sec. 194I were
applicable to such payments and that the provisions of sc. 194C
were not applicable. Accordingly, the AO determined liability for tax
u/s 201(1) of the Act to the extent of Rs.2,96,50,035/-by applying
the provisions of sec. 194H of the Act on the amount of
commission/incentives for the FY 2008-09 and consequent interest
of Rs.22,65,824/- u/s 201(1A) of the Act. Like wise for the FY 2007-
08, interest of Rs. 29,87,995/- u/s 201(1A) was levied while holding
that demand for tax u/s 201(1)[ Rs.5,31,99,162/-] has not been
raised in view of CBDT circular F No. 276/201/96-IT(B) dated
21.9.1997. Moreover, liability for tax required to be deducted at
source for hiring of vehicles in terms of provisions of sec. 194I was
determined at Rs.12,29,927/- for Pune and Rs.19,34,438/- for Halol,
resulting in total liability of Rs.39,55,455/-.After reducing the amount
of tax deducted at source-Rs.7,91,090/- u/s 194C of the Act, net
demand of Rs.31,64,365/- was raised besides consequent interest of
u/s 201(1A) of Rs.2,31,990/-.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Income-Tax Officer vs Smt. Gurinder Kaur on 16 June, 2006
7. As regards plea of the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee, seeking
similar directions for the FY 2008-09[AY 2009-10] as have been
issued by the ld. CIT(A) for the FY 2007-08[AY 2008-09] in respect
of recovery of tax in view of CBDT circular no.276/201/96-IT(B)
dated 29.1.1997, the ld. AR relied upon rule 27 of the ITAT
Rules,1963 and cited the decisions in ITO Vs. Smt. Gurinder
Kaur,102 ITD 189(Delhi), Hindustan Coca-cola Beverages (P.)
Limited. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax293 ITR 226(SC) and
Mahindra And Mahindra Limited. vs Deputy Commissioner Of
Income-Tax.313 ITR(AT) 263(Mumbai). The ld. DR vehemently
opposed the aforesaid plea of the ld. AR on the ground that Rule 27
of the ITAT Rules,1963 is not applicable in the instant case since
no such plea was taken before the ld. CIT(A) or the AO in the
proceedings for the FY 2008-09[AY 2009-10] nor the relevant facts
emerge from the impugned orders.
The Coinage Act, 2011
Section 133A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1