CIT vs. ITC LTD

Q: Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A, Section 192, Section 201(1), Section 201(1A), Section 15, Section 17(3)(ii), Section 10(14), Section 273B

ITA - 860 / 2010HC Delhi11 May 201130 pages

For Petitioner: RASHMI CHOPRA

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that while tips received by employees constitute 'income' chargeable under the head 'salary' under Section 15 of the Act, and it was obligatory for the assessees to deduct taxes at source under Section 192, the assessees were entitled to the benefit of a bonafide belief for the periods up to the assessment years in question. The Court found the cause for non-deduction to be adequate, reliable, and sound, citing decisions from Madhya Pradesh and Delhi High Courts. Consequently, the assessees could not be held liable for penalties under Section 201. However, the Court clarified that interest under Section 201(1A) is mandatory and not subject to waiver based on bonafide belief, referencing Bombay and Delhi High Court judgments. The appeals were allowed, but the operative direction regarding the levy of interest under Section 201(1A) was not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt beyond stating the assessees could not be made liable for penalty under Section 201.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) dismissed appeals filed by the Revenue against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The assessees, ITC Ltd. and CJ International Hotels Ltd., engaged in hotel businesses, were found during surveys under Section 133A to have paid tips to employees without deducting tax at source. The Assessing Officers treated these tips as salary, held the assessees as 'assessees-in-default' under Section 201(1), and levied tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) for assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06. The CIT(A) allowed the assessees' appeals, relying on Tribunal decisions. The Revenue's appeals to the Tribunal were also dismissed, with the Tribunal holding that tips were not liable for TDS under Section 192 and thus the assessees were not in default.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT erred in law and on merits holding that the assessee was not an 'assessee in default' for short/non-deduction of tax at source on account of banquet and restaurant tips collected and paid by it to its employees, under Section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT erred in law and on merits in holding that the payment of banquet and restaurant tips to the employees of the assessee in its capacity as employer were not profits in lieu of salary within the meaning of Section 17(3)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: The assessees argued that tips are not 'salaries' or 'in lieu thereof' paid by them to employees, and therefore, not income taxable under the head 'salary' under Sections 15 and 17. Consequently, no tax was required to be deducted under Section 192. They also relied on a bonafide belief that no taxes were deductible at source, supported by past acceptance of their annual returns by the Revenue, and decisions in cases like Nehru Place Hotels Ltd. v. ITO and CIT v. Nestle India Limited. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the assessees were in default for failing to deduct tax at source under Section 192 on tips, which they argued constitute income of the employees chargeable under the head 'salary' under Sections 15 and 17 of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 192,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 15,Section 17(3)(ii),Section 10(14),Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2011:DHC:14163-DB

More judgments on Section 133A

ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, Sakti
ITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Morbi
ITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot
ITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Amr Infrastructures, Hyderabad vs DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad
ITA 818/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Shri Vikaskumar Macwan, Nadiad vs Dc/ACIT Central Circle 3, Vadodara
ITA 2022/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2020-21

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →