Bhopal Sugar Industries v. STO

117 TTJ 346Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#6503 most cited

What is Bhopal Sugar Industries v. STO authority for?

TDS under section 194H of the Income Tax Act is not applicable when the relationship between the payer and the recipient is on a principal-to-principal basis, such as between a company and its distributor.

17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Bhopal Sugar Industries v. STO · section 194H · TDS applicability · principal to principal basis · distributor agreement · withholding tax

Also reported as

64 AIR 1275

Issues it is cited on

interest under section 201(1a)section 194hsection 201(1a)section 201(1)section 201section 194section 20section 19previous yearpersoncompanyindia

Judgments citing Bhopal Sugar Industries v. STO

N C Shaw and Co Beverages Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Range-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1947/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 28

…2011] 10 taxmann.com 47 (Visakhapatnam ITAT) • Government Milk Scheme V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2006] 98 ITD 306 (Pune ITAT), • Mother Dairy India Ltd. V. Income-tax Officer [2009] 28 SOT 42 (Delhi ITAT) • Fosters India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO [2008] 117 TTJ 346 (ITAT, Pune) • Income tax officer v. Moving Picture Co. [2008] 20 SOT 120 (Delhi ITAT) 3.4. It was further stated that reliance placed by the Ld. AO/CIT(A) on clause (iv) under explanation to Section 194H of the Act is incorrect and the submission in this regard is as under: 26. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that the Ld.AO/CIT(A)…

N C Shaw and Co Beverages Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Circle 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1925/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 28

…2011] 10 taxmann.com 47 (Visakhapatnam ITAT) • Government Milk Scheme V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2006] 98 ITD 306 (Pune ITAT), • Mother Dairy India Ltd. V. Income-tax Officer [2009] 28 SOT 42 (Delhi ITAT) • Fosters India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO [2008] 117 TTJ 346 (ITAT, Pune) • Income tax officer v. Moving Picture Co. [2008] 20 SOT 120 (Delhi ITAT) 3.4. It was further stated that reliance placed by the Ld. AO/CIT(A) on clause (iv) under explanation to Section 194H of the Act is incorrect and the submission in this regard is as under: 26. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that the Ld.AO/CIT(A)…

North Eastern Carrying Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 18(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5964/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Amarjit Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 40

…ally mean anything other than what has been specifically stated in the said definition. Therefore, as held by the coordinate benches in a number of cases including SRL Ranbaxy Ltd vs ACIT (ITA No. 434/Del/11; order dated 16.12.2011), Fosters India Ltd Vs ITO (117 TTJ 346), and Ajmer Zila DugdhUtpadak Sangh Ltd Vs ITO (34 SOT 216), principal agent relationship is a sine qua non for invoking the provisions of Section 194 H. In the case before us, there is no principal agent relationship between the bank issuing the bank guarantee and the assessee. When bank issues the bank guarantee, on behalf of the assessee, all…

Flowmore Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-9(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5372/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194HSection 2Section 2(28)Section 40a

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.-5372/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/s Flowmore Limited, Vs. ACIT Plot No. 14 Block-B/11, Circle-9(1), Mohan Cooperative Estate New Delhi. New Delhi PAN No. AAACF0876E Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Deepak Ostwal, CA Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 09.03.2021 Pronouncement on 09.03.2021 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM Aggrieved by the order dated 31.05.2018 in Appeal No. 240/16-17 passed by the Commissioner of Inc…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5845/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamblenokia India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit C/O. Tec, Level 18, Circle - 10(2), Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, New Delhi. Building No.5, Tower A, Gurgaon. (Pan : Aaacn 2170 R)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

…336 ITR 238 (Del.) • CIT vs. Intervet India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 364 ITR 238 (Bom) • CIT vs. Mother Dairy India & Anr. (2013) 358 ITR 218 (Del) • CIT vs. United Breweries Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 150 (Andhra Pradesh & Telangana) • Foster’s India (P) Ltd. vs ITO (2018) 117 TTJ 346 (Pune) The Ld. AR further submitted that no payment has been made by the assessee and thus the primary condition for invoking Section 194H remains unsatisfied. In this regard, the Ld. AR relied upon the following case laws: • Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 539 (Raj.) • Pr. CIT vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilize…

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5791/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamblenokia India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit C/O. Tec, Level 18, Circle - 10(2), Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, New Delhi. Building No.5, Tower A, Gurgaon. (Pan : Aaacn 2170 R)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

…336 ITR 238 (Del.) • CIT vs. Intervet India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 364 ITR 238 (Bom) • CIT vs. Mother Dairy India & Anr. (2013) 358 ITR 218 (Del) • CIT vs. United Breweries Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 150 (Andhra Pradesh & Telangana) • Foster’s India (P) Ltd. vs ITO (2018) 117 TTJ 346 (Pune) The Ld. AR further submitted that no payment has been made by the assessee and thus the primary condition for invoking Section 194H remains unsatisfied. In this regard, the Ld. AR relied upon the following case laws: • Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 539 (Raj.) • Pr. CIT vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilize…

Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Limited), Kolkata vs. ACIT-TDS, Circle-2, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1582/KOL/2019[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 201(1)

…following decisions: • Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Associations vs. Union of India (257 ITR 202) (Guj), now affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is reported in 348 ITR 378; • Bhopal Sugar Industries vs. STO (1977 - 064 AIR 1275) • Foster’s India P. Ltd. Vs. ITO (117 TTJ 346). Thus, we humbly submit that based on the ratio of the above decisions as also the agreement for the relevant assessment year, the relationship with Distributor is on principal to principal basis and hence, TDS u/s. 194H of the Act cannot be applied. 9. ……………………………………… 10. ……………………………………… 11. ……………………………………… 12. ……………………………………… 13. ……………………………………

Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Limited), Kolkata vs. ACIT-TDS, Circle-2, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1581/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 201(1)

…following decisions: • Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Associations vs. Union of India (257 ITR 202) (Guj), now affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is reported in 348 ITR 378; • Bhopal Sugar Industries vs. STO (1977 - 064 AIR 1275) • Foster’s India P. Ltd. Vs. ITO (117 TTJ 346). Thus, we humbly submit that based on the ratio of the above decisions as also the agreement for the relevant assessment year, the relationship with Distributor is on principal to principal basis and hence, TDS u/s. 194H of the Act cannot be applied. 9. ……………………………………… 10. ……………………………………… 11. ……………………………………… 12. ……………………………………… 13. ……………………………………

Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Limited), Kolkata vs. ACIT-TDS, Circle-2, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1580/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 201(1)

…following decisions: • Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Associations vs. Union of India (257 ITR 202) (Guj), now affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is reported in 348 ITR 378; • Bhopal Sugar Industries vs. STO (1977 - 064 AIR 1275) • Foster’s India P. Ltd. Vs. ITO (117 TTJ 346). Thus, we humbly submit that based on the ratio of the above decisions as also the agreement for the relevant assessment year, the relationship with Distributor is on principal to principal basis and hence, TDS u/s. 194H of the Act cannot be applied. 9. ……………………………………… 10. ……………………………………… 11. ……………………………………… 12. ……………………………………… 13. ……………………………………

Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Limited), Kolkata vs. ACIT-TDS, Circle-2, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1579/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 201(1)

…following decisions: • Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Associations vs. Union of India (257 ITR 202) (Guj), now affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is reported in 348 ITR 378; • Bhopal Sugar Industries vs. STO (1977 - 064 AIR 1275) • Foster’s India P. Ltd. Vs. ITO (117 TTJ 346). Thus, we humbly submit that based on the ratio of the above decisions as also the agreement for the relevant assessment year, the relationship with Distributor is on principal to principal basis and hence, TDS u/s. 194H of the Act cannot be applied. 9. ……………………………………… 10. ……………………………………… 11. ……………………………………… 12. ……………………………………… 13. ……………………………………

M/S. Navnirman Highway Projects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 117/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Shashwat Bajpai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Senior DR
Section 14ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 194HSection 2

…ally mean anything other than what has been specifically stated in the said definition. Therefore, as held by the coordinate benches in a number of cases including SRL Ranbaxy Ltd vs ACIT (ITA No. 434/Del/11; order dated 16.12.2011), Fosters India Ltd Vs ITO (117 TTJ 346), and Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd Vs ITO (34 SOT 216), principal agent relationship is a sine qua non for invoking the provisions of Section 194 H. In the case before us, there is no principal agent relationship between the bank issuing the bank guarantee and the assessee. When bank issues the bank guarantee, on behalf of the assessee, all…

DCIT (TDS) Cir. - 1(2), Mumbai vs. First Source Solutions Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2012-2013

ITA 6110/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dcit (Tds)-1 (2), M/S First Source Solutions Ltd., Room No. 803, 5Th Floor, Paradigm, K.G. Mittal Hospital Bldg., B-Wing, Mindspace Link Road, Charni Road (W), Vs. Malad (W), Mumbai - 400002 Mumbai - 400064 Pan: Aaaci8904N (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri S. Padmaja (Cit Dr) Assessee By : Shri F.V. Irani (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2018

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani (AR)For Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja (CIT DR)
Section 194HSection 196CSection 201

…eally mean anything other than what has been specifically stated In the said definition. Therefore as held by the coordinate benches in a number Of cases including SRL Ranbaxy Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No434/Del/11) order dated 16.122011), Fosters India Ltd. Vs. ITO(117 TTJ 346), and Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadak SanghVrs. ITO (34 SOD 216), principle agent relationship is a sine qua non of invoking provisions of section I94H. In the case before us, there is no principal agent relationship between the bank issuing the bank guarantee and the assessee. When bank issue the bank guarantee on behalf of the assessee all it does is…

DCIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Clear Trip Travel Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 85/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, M/S Clear Trip Travel Pvt. Circle-6(2)(1), Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.563, Aayakar Bhavan Unit No.1, Ground Floor, Vs. M.K. Road, Dtc Bldg, Sitaram Mills Mumbai-400020 Compound, N.M. Johi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaccc6016B

Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…as been specifically stated in the said definition. Therefore, as held by the coordinate benches in a number of cases including SRL 11 M/s Clear Trip Travel Pvt. Ltd. Ranbaxy Ltd vs ACIT (ITA No. 434/Del/11; order dated 16.12.2011), Fosters India Ltd Vs ITO (117 TTJ 346), and Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd Vs ITO (34 SOT 216), principal agent relationship is a sine qua non for invoking the provisions of Section 194 H. In the case before us, there is no principal agent relationship between the bank issuing the bank guarantee and the assessee. When bank issues the bank guarantee, on behalf of the assessee, all…

Ima Pg India Ltd ( Formerly M.S, Precision Gears), Navi Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 5(2), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6960/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhima Pg India Limited Addl.Cit Range-5(2), (Formerly Known As M/S Precision Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Gears Ltd), Plot No. R-677, Mumbai-400020. Midc Ttc Indl Area, Thane Vs. Belapur Road, Rabale, Navi Mumbai-400701 Pan: Aaacp6442Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl.Cit Range-5(2), M/S Precision Gears Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Plot G-1, Everest Apartment, Mumbai-400020. Vs. 156, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400034 Pan: Aaacp6442Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar (CIT-
Section 145ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 92CSection 93C

…ally mean anything other than what has been specifically stated in the said definition. Therefore, as held by the coordinate benches in a number of cases including SRL Ranbaxy Ltd vs ACIT (ITA No. 434/Del/11; order dated 16.12.2011), Fosters India Ltd Vs ITO (117 TTJ 346), and Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd Vs ITO (34 SOT 216), principal agent relationship is a sine qua non for invoking the provisions of Section 194 H. In the case before us, there is no principal agent relationship between the bank issuing the bank guarantee and the assessee. When bank issues the bank guarantee, on behalf of the assessee, all…

ITO (TDS) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Tourism Developement Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5232/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri D. Karunakar Raoassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer(Tds)- M/S Maharashtra Tourism 2(3), Development Corporation Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.708, 7Th Floor, Express Tower, 9Th Floor, Vs. Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Madam Cama Road, Hospital Building, Nariman Point, Charni Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400002 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm0712G

Section 133ASection 194Section 194HSection 201(1)

…ally mean anything other than what has been specifically stated in the said definition. Therefore, as held by the coordinate benches in a number of cases including SRL Ranbaxy Ltd vs ACIT (ITA No. 434/Del/11; order dated 16.12.2011), Fosters India Ltd Vs ITO (117 TTJ 346), and Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd Vs ITO (34 SOT 216), principal agent relationship is a sine qua non for invoking the provisions of Section 194 H. In the case before us, there is no principal agent relationship between the bank issuing the bank guarantee and the assessee. When bank issues the bank guarantee, on behalf of the assessee, all…

DCIT TDS 1(1), Mumbai vs. Cleartrip Travel Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5049/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Dcit(Osd)(Tds), Range-1, M/S Cleartrip Travel Room No.803, Services Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ K.G. Mittal Hospital Bldg. Unit No.1, Ground Floor, Vs. Charni Road (W), Dtc Building, Sitaram Mumbai-400002 Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011 Pan No.Aaccc6016B (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…ally mean anything other than what has been specifically stated in the said definition. Therefore, as held by the coordinate benches in a number of cases including SRL Ranbaxy Ltd vs ACIT (ITA No. 434/Del/11; order dated 16.12.2011), Fosters India Ltd Vs ITO (117 TTJ 346), and Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd Vs ITO (34 SOT 216), principal agent relationship is a sine qua non for invoking the provisions of Section 194 H. In the case before us, there is no principal agent relationship between the bank issuing the bank guarantee and the assessee. When bank issues the bank guarantee, on behalf of the assessee, all…

ITO (TDS) (OSD) RG 2, Mumbai vs. Nimbus Communications Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3156/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 194DSection 194HSection 2Section 201Section 44A

…ally mean anything other than what has been specifically stated in the said definition. Therefore, as held by the coordinate benches in a number of cases including SRL Ranbaxy Ltd vs ACIT (ITA No. 434/Del/11; order dated 16.12.2011), Fosters India Ltd Vs ITO (117 TTJ 346), and Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd Vs ITO (34 SOT 216), principal agent relationship is a sine qua non for invoking the provisions of Section 194 H. In the case before us, there is no principal agent relationship between the bank issuing the bank guarantee and the assessee. When bank issues the bank guarantee, on behalf of the assessee, all…

Bhopal Sugar Industries v. STO (117 TTJ 346) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax