CIT v. Hardarshan Singh

350 ITR 427High Court2013#6899 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2024.

Also reported as

216 Taxmann 283

Sections most often in play

Section 194A Section 2(28A)Section 201(1A)Section 201(1)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 201(1a)assessee in default section 201(1)section 201 section 194 section 19 prescribed transfer person company india business

Judgments citing CIT v. Hardarshan Singh

DCIT (TDS) - 1(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILLS vs. ANAND RATHI COMMODITIES LIMITED, A WING, TH FLOOR,

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3919/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 2(28)Section 201

…it cannot be reckoned as a person responsible for payment of income by way of interest to the clients. Ld. Counsel has referred few judgments of the Hon’ble M/s. Anand Rathi Commodities Ltd. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hardarshan Singh reported in 350 ITR 427 (Del); and CIT vs. Cargo Linkers reported in 218 CTR 693(Del), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that provision of TDS cannot be applied in case of intermediary / agents acted on behalf of its clients and intermediary cannot be held to be person responsible for the purpose of TDS provisions. Though these decisions have been rendered in the…

DCIT (TDS) - 1(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILLS vs. ANANAD RATHI COMMODITIES LIMITED, A WING , TH FLOOR,

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3900/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 2(28)Section 201

ITO (TDS), PATIALA vs. M/S S.A. SINGH & CO., BHAWANIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 986/CHANDI/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 10(24)Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 133ASection 194CSection 194C(6)Section 2(31)Section 201(1)

…DS for payment made to the Truck Operator Union is that of the M/s Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. and not that of the assessee company. 6.3 Further, the Ld. CIT(A) relied on the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Hardarshan Singh (2013) 350 ITR 427 stating that the facts in the instant case are similar as in the case before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court where it was held that where the assessee acted as a mere facilitator or intermediary as per contract, there is no liability to deduct tax at source u/s 194C and therefore following the same, it was held that the assessee is not liable to ded…

DCIT (TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 126/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 165ASection 204Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.126/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2019–20) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) ……………. Appellant Circle–2(3), Mumbai v/s Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. Plot no.17/18, Platium Techno Park ……………. Respondent Sector–30AB, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 026 PAN – AABCU6223H Assessee by : Shri Hiten Chande Revenue by : Shri Ankush Kapoor Date of Hearing – 24/04/2023 Date of Order – 26/04/2023 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed…

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 711/MUM/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhuber India Systems Vs. The Dcit(Tds)-2(3) Private Limited Smt. K.G. Mittal Unit 41/46, Floor 3 Ayurvedic Hospital Paragon, Phoenix Market Building, City, Lbs Marg, Charni Road (West) Kurla (W), Mumbai - 400002 Mumbai – 400070 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcu6223H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : J.D. Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent By : Achal Sharma

For Appellant: J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Achal Sharma

Section 194Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 204Section 206A

…P a g e | 1 Uber India Systems pvt. Ltd. Vs. The DCIT(TDS)-2(3) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Uber India Systems Vs. The DCIT(TDS)-2(3) Private Limited Smt. K.G. Mittal Unit 41/46, Floor 3 Ayurvedic Hospital Paragon, Phoenix Market Building, City, LBS Marg, Charni Road (West) Kurla (W), Mumbai - 400002 Mumbai – 400070 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABCU6223H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : J.D. Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent by : Achal Sharma Date of Hearing 09.11.2022 Date of Pronounc…

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JT.CIT (TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5862/MUM/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 204Section 206ASection 251(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM ITA No.5862 & 5863/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively) M/s. Uber India Systems Private Vs. Jt. CIT (TDS)(OSD)-2(3), Limited Mumbai Unit 41/46, Floor 3 Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Paragaon, Phoenix Market City, Hospital Building, LBS Marg, Kurla (W), Charni Road Mumbai – 400 070 Mumbai – 400 002 PAN/GIR No.AABCU6223H TAN: MUMU07023C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Jehangir Mistry & Shri Hiten Chande Revenue by Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar and Shri Akhtar Ansari 19/11/2019 ,…

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

C.A. No.-007865-007865 - 2009Supreme Court29 Jul 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 40

…10.1.1. The learned counsel has supported his contentions against the applicability of Section 194C of the Act to the present case with reference to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Hardarshan Singh: (2013) 350 ITR 427 wherein it was held that when the 15 assessee merely acted as facilitator or intermediary in the process of transportation of goods, he had no liability to deduct TDS under Section 194C of the Act. 10.2. The main plank of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant has been that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia)…

SH. JAGDEEP SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, PANIPAT

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

ITA 1462/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S. Sainiassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 194Section 194CSection 40

…racted. He submitted that SLP filed by the revenue against the said order of the High Court has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. He further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hardarshan Singh reported in 350 ITR 427 (Delhi) where it was held that the assessee received freight charges from the clients who intended to transport their goods through separate transporters. The entire amount collected from the clients is paid to the transporters after deducting commission from the amount. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the contract was between th…

KGL NETWORK (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 14(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 301/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Priyansh Jain, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Verma, CIT-D.R

Section 234ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 44B

…C; further, both CIT(A) and Tribunal, had concurrently found that there was reasonable cause not to deduct tax at source; no substantial question of law arises.” 16. The Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hardarshan Singh (2013) 350 ITR 427 (Delhi) held as under : “In the case of CIT v. Cargo Linkers: (2009) 179 Taxman 151 (Del) the Tribunal had also noted and found as a matter of fact that the assessee was nothing but an intermediary between the exporters and the airlines as it booked cargo for and on behalf of the exporters and mainly facilitated the contract for carrying go…

RAM BINAY SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(2), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 1158/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 40

…DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1157 & 1158/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Ram Binay Sharma vs ITO 1/579, IInd Floor, Ward 2(2), Sector-1, Vaishali, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad. BAAPS4781B Appellant Respondent Appellant/ Assessee Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. by Respondent/ Sh. Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR Revenue by Date of Hearing 11.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement 12.06.2018 ORDER PER BENCH These two appeals are filed against the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter for short ca…

RAM BINAY SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(2), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 1157/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 40

RAJAT MAKAN,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 958/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR

Section 143Section 40

…cable TDS provision. Various authorities were mentioned which are filed in paper book running into 47 pages placed on records. At serial No. 4, 5, 6 following case laws were relied: a. Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in case of Hardarshan Singh reported at 350 ITR 427 (pages 27 to 34); b. Hon’ble Delhi ITAT decision in case of Kavita order dated 19th may 2016 (pages 35 to 37) c. Hon’ble Delhi ITAT decision in case of Vikas Yadav order dated 2nd /8/2016 placed in paper book at pages 38 to 47; Thus arguing, assessee’s counsel Sh. Goel pleaded for deletion of the addition. 6. Countering the arguments of the Ld c…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -19 vs. SHRI KULDEEP KUMAR SHARMA

ITA/437/2016HC Delhi07 Nov 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 40

…Associates are not sub-contractors by applying the ratio of the order passed by ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench, in the case of Mythri Transport Corporation Vs. ACIT, 124 TTJ 970; that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hardarshan Singh, 350 ITR 427, decided the identical issues. The operative para of the judgment is as under: "DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE-LORRY BOOKING BUSINESS-ASSESSEE COLLECTING FREIGHT CHARGES FROM CLIENTS WHO INTENDED TO TRANSPORT THEIR GOODS THROUGH SEPARATE TRANSPORTERS-ASSESSEE PAYING TO TRANSPORTERS ENTIRE AMOUNT COLLECTED FROM CLIENTS AFTER DED…

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 19 vs. SHRI KULDEEP KUMAR SHARMA

ITA/435/2016HC Delhi07 Nov 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 40

M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 277/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 40

…een reimbursed, the same does not enter the Profit & loss Account of the person seeking reimbursement, as it is not his/their expenditure. Reliance in this connection is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT- v. Hardarshan Singh (2013) 350 ITR 427 (Del), as well as of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. (2014) 361ITR 192 (Guj), the SLP filed by the Revenue against the later judgment was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17th January, 2014 (ITA 315 of 2013 & CC No. 175 of 2014). 23. It may be appreciated that section 194G of the said…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. KULDEEP KUMAR SHARMA, DELHI

ITA 200/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. J.S. Reddy & Sh. Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv &

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 194C(2)Section 40

…kash Associates are not sub- contractors by applying the ratio of the order passed by ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench, in the case of Mythri Transport Corporation Vs. ACIT, 124 TTJ 970; that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hardarshan Singh, 350 ITR 427, decided the identical issues. The operative para of the judgment is as under: “DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE-LORRY BOOKING BUSINESS-ASSESSEE COLLECTING FREIGHT CHARGES FROM CLIENTS WHO INTENDED TO TRANSPORT THEIR GOODS THROUGH SEPARATE TRANSPORTERS-ASSESSEE PAYING TO TRANSPORTERS ENTIRE AMOUNT COLLECTED FROM CLIENTS AFTER DEDUCTING HIS COMMISSION-N…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OPERA GLOBAL PVT LTD

ITA/359/2012HC Delhi25 Aug 2014

Section 115JSection 194CSection 40

…to be deducted on air freight paid to airlines. The payment towards air freight was required for exporting the goods as the respondent assessee was an exporter and the consignor. Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hardarshan Singh, (2013) 350 ITR 427, has held that on applying principle of privity of contract, mere reimbursement of charges would not require deduction of taxes at source. 12. The findings of the Tribunal being factual and the Revenue having preferred these appeals challenging the said findings, by the order dated 23rd September, 2013 passed in ITA 359/2012, it was inter…