CIT vs. ASIAN HOTEL LTD

?eJ $-39 & 40 * IN THE HIG}I COURT OF DELHI tT A 424 12012, C.M. APPL. 12020 12012 CIT ' versus VI/S ASIAN I{OTEL LTD Through: Nemo. IT L 425 12012, C.M. APPL. 12059 12012 CI'I' versus ASIAN HOTEL LTD Through : Sh. Deepak Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel with Sh. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate. AT NEW DELHI ..... Appellant .J- ..... Respondent ..... Appellant Through : Sh. Deepak Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel with Sh. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate. ..... Respondent tr Through: Nemo. CORAM: I.ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MIT. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR ORDER % 19.07.2012 In these appeals, the Revenue claims to be aggrieved by an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 18.11.2001 by which its appeals were allowed and the Assessee's liability for TDS in respect of the tips its employees received and were given, was determined. The Tribunal also held that the liability of Assessee to deduct tax under Section 201(1) is to the extent of tax which has not been paid by the deductee and tlrat penalty had been separately provided for under Section 221 of the Act. The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to redetennine the liability of the Assessee under Sections 201(1) and 201(in). Learneil counsel for the appellanVRevenue urged that even though there is no grievance in these appeals, the Revenue wanted to protect itself since the Assessee's appeals are sgheduled for hearing and that the Revenue wishes to place reliance on the decision in CIT' v. American Express (ITA 7412003, decided on 21 .12.2011 by this Cotut). This Court is of the opinion that since the question of law has been decided by the Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

'kt -l(b/ \/ appeals. Whatever of its case in the S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J Ul.,^-' ' II.V.EASWAR, J Tribunal in Revenue's favour, there is no leason for the filing of these contentions the Revenue wishes to rely upon or urge, in support Assessee's appeals are in any event open to it under law. The appeals and pending applications are accordingly dismissed. v JULY 'ajk' t9,2012 le"