INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), WARD-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S KANAKASHREE GRIHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 615/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 December 2017AY 2013-143 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 order, finding that the agreement was for the purchase of developed sites and did not involve a works contract. The Tribunal noted that the High Court had approved the Tribunal's order in a similar case.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) raised demands under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) against the assessee society for not deducting TDS on payments made to developers. The CIT(A) deleted these demands, relying on High Court and Tribunal precedents.

What were the issues?

Whether TDS was deductible on payments made for developed sites, and if the assessee was in default for not deducting it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA & SHRI LALIT KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri B. R. Ramesh, JCIT DR
Hearing: 13.12.2017Pronounced: 13.12.2017

O R D E R PER BENCH: These twelve appeals are filed by the revenue and these are directed against a combined order of CIT (A) – 13, Bengaluru dated 29.12.2016 for A. Ys. 2008 – 09 to 2013 – 14 and there are two appeals for each year, out of which one appeal is in respect of demand raised u/s 201 (1) and the second passed appeal is in respect of demand raised u/s 201 (1A). All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience.

2.

Brief facts are that as per the A.O., there was an obligation of the assessee society to deduct tax at source in relation to the amounts paid by the assessee society to the developers. The AO found that the assessee has not deducted this TDS and therefore, the AO raised demands u/s 201 (1) & 201 (1A). Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before CIT (A). He deleted these demands as per the impugned combined order by following the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs.

ITA Nos. 605 to 616/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 3 Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co operative Society Ltd. in ITA 1275/2006 and also the tribunal order rendered in the case of ITO vs. Railway House Building Co operative Society Ltd. in to 1337 dated 07.04.2016. Now the revenue is in appeal before us.

3.

Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders passed by the AO u/s 201 (1) & 201 (1A). Learned AR of the assessee supported the order of CIT (A). He also submitted a copy of a judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Railway House Building Co operative Society Ltd. in 460 & 461/2016 dated 16.10.2017 and pointed out that the tribunal order followed by CIT (A) in the same case has been approved by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in Para 9 of his order, learned CIT (A) has recorded a categorical finding that the agreement in dispute is only for purchase of developed sites and it does not involve any works contract although it separately refers to payment towards layout charges. This finding of CIT (A) could not be controverted by the learned DR of the revenue. Moreover, Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present case and in the case of CIT vs. Railway House Building Co operative Society Ltd. (Supra). Since, learned CIT (A) has followed this tribunal order rendered in the case of CIT vs. Railway House Building Co operative Society Ltd. (Supra) and Hon’ble High Court has also approved this tribunal order, we find no reason to interfere in the order of CIT (A).

5.

In the result, all the twelve appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →