DCIT (TDS) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3954/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 October 2019AY 2008-094 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the recipients had shown the income in their returns and following the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., the assessee was not in default. Therefore, the interest levied under Section 201(1A) was unjustified.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, which deleted interest levied under Section 201(1A). The issue was whether TDS on payments to Bloomberg and Reuters should have been deducted under Section 194J or 194C.

What were the issues?

The core issue was whether the payments made by the assessee to Bloomberg and Reuters were for professional/technical services (requiring TDS u/s 194J) or for carrying out work (requiring TDS u/s 194C).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194C,Section 194J,Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal
For Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh
Hearing: 22.08.2019Pronounced: 29.10.2019

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)– 60, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 06.03.2018 for the A.Y. 2008-09.

2.

Revenue in its appeal has raised the following grounds: - ”A: 1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in relying on the decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case for A.Y's. 2010-11 & 2011-12, and not considering the fact

(A.Y: 2008-09) Standard Chartered Bank-India that the services were being provided by the qualified/professional persons of these parties i.e. M/s. Bloomberg Data Services P. Ltd and M/s. Reuters India P. Ltd and therefore, the TDS should have been deducted u/s. 194J and not u/s.194C?" 2. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in relying on the decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case for A.Y's. 2010-11 & 2011-12 and not considering the fact, that the core issue as to whether the deduction should be u/s. 194J or u/s. 194C has not decided by ITAT?" 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in relying on the decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case for A.Y's. 2010-11 & 2011-12 and not considering the fact, that the AO has levied only the interest u/s. 201(1A) of Rs. 65,01,175/- after applying the decision of M/s. Hindustan Coca-cola Beverages P. Ltd?" B: The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary at the time of hearing of the case or thereafter. C: The order of the CIT (A) being erroneous be set aside and Ld. A.O's order be restored.”

3.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 in ITA.Nos. 3339 & 3340/MUM/2014 and ITA.No. 6052/MUM/2014 dated 08.11.2017 wherein the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., [293 ITR 226] held that the assessee was not in-default u/s. 201(1) of the Act. Copy of the order is placed on record. He further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) followed the order of the Tribunal and deleted the interest levied u/s. 201(1A) of the Act by the Assessing

(A.Y: 2008-09) Standard Chartered Bank-India Officer. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that facts are identical as the payments made by the assessee were to the very same parties namely M/s. Bloomberg Data Services Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Reuters India Pvt. Ltd., and the assessee has deducted TDS u/s. 194C of the Act on the payments made to the said parties. However, the Assessing Officer held that the TDS should have been made u/s. 194J of the Act. Therefore, since facts being identical the same may be followed.

4.

Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the order of the Tribunal, we find that identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12 wherein the Tribunal held as under: - “5. We have the perused the material on record. We find that assessee had made payment to three parties under the head subscription charges, that it had deducted tax at source as per the provisions of section 194C of the Act, that the AO and the FAA had held that tax should have been deducted as per provisions of section 194J, that Bloomberg, Reuter and CRISIL had shown the income received from the assessee, in their returns of income filed for the year under appeal. We find that basically it is a case of short deduction of tax and not a matter of non deduction of tax at source. Secondly, the AO has also taken a notice of filing of returns by the recipients of the amounts in question. Respectfully, following the judgment of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt.(supra)of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hold that there was no justification to hold the assessee an assessee-in -default. So, reversing the order of the FAA, we decide the effective ground of appeal in favour of the assessee.”

(A.Y: 2008-09) Standard Chartered Bank-India 6. Facts being identical, respectfully following the said decision, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue.

7.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 29th October, 2019

More judgments on Section 194C

All 2,696 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →