CIT vs. ASIAN HOTEL (NORTH) LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/422/2012HC DelhiDLHC01112157201231 July 2012Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no reason for the Revenue to file appeals as the ITAT had decided the question of law in the Revenue's favor. The Revenue's contentions can be raised in the Assessee's pending appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against an ITAT order that allowed the Assessee's appeals regarding TDS liability on employee tips. The Tribunal had also held that TDS liability is limited to unpaid tax by the deductee and that penalty is separate.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeals are maintainable when the ITAT has ruled in its favor on the core issue of TDS liability on employee tips.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 271

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

s-5&6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF' DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA42U20|2 CIT ..... Appellant Through Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv. for Mr. Deepak Chopra, sr. standing counsel versus ASIAN HOTELS LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr. KN Ahuja, Adv. + 1TA42212012. CM 1182312012 CIT ..... Appellant Through Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv. for Mr. Deepak Chopra, sr. standing counsel versus ASIAN HOTEL (I{ORTH) LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. KN Ahuja, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR ORDER oh 3t.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 that penalty had been separately provided for under Section 22I of the Act. The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to redetermine the liability of the Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

Assessee under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A). Learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue urged that even though there is no grievance in these appeals, the Revenue wanted to protect itself since the Assessee's appeals are scheduled 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 Court). This Court is of the opinion that since the question of law has been decided by the Tribunal in Revenue's favour, there is no reason for the filing of these appeals. Whatever contentions the Revenue wishes to rely upon or urge, in support of its case in the Assessee's appeals are in any event open to it under law. The appeals and pending applications are accordingly dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J $![.^.-. ' R.V.EASWAR, J JULY 3r,20L2 vld

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 →