(2007) 288 ITR 379 (Del) and CIT v. Trans Bharat Aviation (P) Ltd. (320 ITR 671)

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 484/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 234A

…the presumption is that these companies have included the interest paid by the 37 Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat vs DCIT Circle –Sikar assessee to them in their income and paid tax thereon. The Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Trans Bharat Aviation Pvt. Ltd. 320 ITR 671 has held that since deductee is a Government undertaking, the taxes may be presumed to have been paid lastly by the due date of filing of the return of income and, therefore, the liability of the assessee to pay interest on the amount which was to be deducted as TDS ends with the due date of filing of the return by the deductee. Therefore, consid…

ZENITH ERECTORS PVT. LTD., ,HALDIA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 27, HALDIA , HALDIA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2183/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

…42,902/- paid to M/s Indian Oil Co. Ltd without deducting TDS. There is no issue herein as well that assessee has not deducted any TDS regarding the impugned interest payment. Hon'ble Delhi high court’s judgment in CIT vs. Trans Bharat Aviation (P) Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 671 (Del) has upheld the tribunal’s decision presuming that if the payee / deductee is a Government of India undertaking, it cannot be presumed to have not paid tax on the receipts in issue. Learned Departmental Representative is fair enough in not disputing the fact that deducteee herein M/s Indian Oil Co. Ltd. is a Government of India Public Sector…

M/S MITTAL PHARMA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 734/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…urn and paid tax on the same as held by the Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in case of ACIT vs. Girdhari Lai Bargoti ITA No. 757/JP/2012 dated 10.04.2015 where relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Tran Bharat Aviation Pvt. Ltd. 320 ITR 671 it was held that the recipient being an NBFC it is not possible that they are not assessed to tax and therefore, no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made. Alternatively, AO be directed cause necessary enquires from Barclays Investment & Loan (India) ltd. to ensure that it has included the interest received from assessee in its income, paid tax t…

SNEH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 698/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (JCIT)

Section 133ASection 40

…e have paid interests are assessed to tax. Therefore, the presumption is that these companies have included the interest paid by the assessee to them in their income and paid tax thereon. The Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Trans Bharat Aviation Pvt. Ltd. 320 ITR 671 has held that since deductee is a Government undertaking, the taxes may be presumed to have been paid lastly by the due date of filing of the return of income and, therefore, the liability of the assessee to pay interest on the amount which was to be deducted as TDS ends with the due date of filing of the return by the deductee. Further, Hon’ble…

CIT vs. M/S BABCOCK POWER

ITA - 178 / 2002HC Delhi05 Sept 2014

Section 10(6)Section 192Section 201Section 260A

…nterest would be only for the period commencing from the date of such tax was deductible to the date on which tax was actually paid. [CIT vs. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 379 Delhi and CIT – XVII vs. Trans Bharat Aviation (P) Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 671.]. 7. In view of the aforesaid position, the question is answered against the appellant Revenue and in favour of the respondent/assessee. The order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference.” 5. For parity of reasons we answer the substantial question of law against the appellant Revenue and in favour of the respondent-assess…