DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANDRITZ AG, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3413/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 June 2018AY 2010-113 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete interest under Section 234B. It was held that for a non-resident assessee subject to withholding tax under Section 195, interest under Section 234B is not leviable.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer charged interest under Section 234B. The assessee, a non-resident, argued that since payments were subject to withholding tax under Section 195, advance tax was not payable, and thus interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

What were the issues?

Whether interest under Section 234B is leviable on a non-resident assessee when payments are subject to withholding tax under Section 195.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234B,Section 195,Section 209(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.

Before: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Respondent: Ms Ritu Taneja, CA
Hearing: 19.06.2018Pronounced: 21.06.2018

ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld.

CIT(A)-42, New Delhi dated 09.03.2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 on the following ground :

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting interest u/s. 234B.”

2.

In this case the solitary issue involved is relating to the deleting of interest u/s. 234B by the ld.CIT(A). In the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer charged interest u/s. 234B as application, which was challenged by assessee before the ld. CIT(A) who following the decision of jurisdictional High Court, concluded that the interest u/s. 234B is not leviable on the assessee. The finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under :

“15.1. The appellant has submitted that since payments to non-resident are subject to withholding tax u/s. 195 of the Act, the appellant is not liable to pay advance tax and hence, interest u/s. 234B in terms of provisions of section 209(1)(d). Reliance has been placed on following rulings: • DIT vs NGC Network Asia LLC 222 CTR 86 (Bom) • DIT vs Jacabs Civil Incorporated, 235 ITR 123 (Del). • CIT vs Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. 271 ITR 395 (Uttrakhand)

15.2 I have duly considered submissions of the appellant. Respectfully following jurisdictional Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision referred to supra, I hold that interest u/s. 234B is not leviable because payments made to non-resident appellant are subject to tax deduction u/s. 195 of the Act. The A.O. is directed to grant the relief accordingly.”

3.

The ld. DR challenging the findings of the ld. CIT(A) contended that the charge of interest made by the Assessing Officer has wrongly been deleted by the ld. CIT(A). He, therefore, urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the order of assessment deserves to be restored.

4.

On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee being a non-resident is not liable to pay interest u/s. 234B of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the same after following the decision of jurisdictional High Court.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire material available on record and the case laws relied by the ld. CIT(A).

We find that the conclusion reached by the ld. CIT(A) is based on the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court on the issue of interest – whether leviable on the non-resident assessee or not, as per provisions of section 234B of the Act, as the assessee was subject to withholding tax u/s. 195 of the Act. No counter decision is placed on record on behalf of the Revenue. We, therefore, finding no infirmity in the impugned order, are not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed.

More judgments on Section 234B

All 10,214 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →