CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd.

340 ITR 333High Court2012#613 most cited

What is CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. authority for?

A deductor's bonafide belief or reliance on a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) can influence whether they are deemed an 'assessee in default' under Section 195 for failing to deduct tax at source on payments to non-residents. The decision clarifies the due diligence required when interpreting tax treaties and TRCs for TDS compliance.

161

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. · Section 195 · Section 201(1) · Section 201(1A) · Section 40(a)(i) · bonafide belief · Tax Residency Certificate · TRC · withholding tax · TDS on non-residents · tax treaty interpretation · assessee in default

Also reported as

15 Taxmann.com 77245 CTR 3

Sections most often in play

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 201(1A)Section 40(a)(i)Section 194JSection 40(a)(ia)

Issues it is cited on

place of effective managementtax residency certificatesection 195(2)section 194htrcsection 194jwithholding taxbeneficial ownersection 40(a)(i)tax treatypermanent establishmentsection 195

Judgments citing CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd.

M/S. Arihant Cheritable Trust, Indore vs. The ITO (TDS)-1, Indore

In the result, we find no force in the ground of the Revenue, hence dismissed

ITA 909/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…ench of this Tribunal rendered in the case of ITO vs. Gujarat Fluoro chemicals Limited (ITANo.1983,1984,1985/Ahd/2012) dated 31.10.2013. Ld. counsel also placed reliance the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Kotak Security Ltd. 340 ITR 333(SC). Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal rendered in the case of ITO, Rohtak vs. Akon Electronics India (P.) Ltd. (2018) 97 Taxmann.com 176(Delhi-Trib.) 9. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by observing as under: “Ground No…

ACIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…ated as an assessee in default for not deducting the tax at source and consequently, disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act is not warranted. The aforesaid principle has been upheld by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd: 340 ITR 333 wherein the Court held as under: ―……… 32. Accordingly, we hold that the transaction charges paid by the assessee to the stock exchange constitute "fees for technical services" covered under section 194J of the Act and, therefore, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source while crediting the transaction charges to the account of the stock ex…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…ated as an assessee in default for not deducting the tax at source and consequently, disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act is not warranted. The aforesaid principle has been upheld by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd: 340 ITR 333 wherein the Court held as under: ―……… 32. Accordingly, we hold that the transaction charges paid by the assessee to the stock exchange constitute "fees for technical services" covered under section 194J of the Act and, therefore, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source while crediting the transaction charges to the account of the stock ex…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…ated as an assessee in default for not deducting the tax at source and consequently, disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act is not warranted. The aforesaid principle has been upheld by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd: 340 ITR 333 wherein the Court held as under: ―……… 32. Accordingly, we hold that the transaction charges paid by the assessee to the stock exchange constitute "fees for technical services" covered under section 194J of the Act and, therefore, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source while crediting the transaction charges to the account of the stock ex…

Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1959/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2020AY 2005-06

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

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…oftware has been held to be allowable as revenue deduction: " CIT(A) Vs. ACL Wireless Ltd: 361 ITR 210 (Del) " CIT v. Technovate E Solutions P. Ltd: 254 ITR 110 (Del.) " CIT v. Varindra Agro Chemicals: 309 ITR 272 (P&H) " CIT vs Kotak Securities Ltd (No. 1): 346 ITR 349 (Bom) " CIT v. Uhde India P. Ltd: 358 ITR 395 (Bom) " CIT v. IBM India Ltd: 357 ITR 88 (Kar.) " CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. 97 taxmann.com 105(Mad) " CIT v. Shri Renuga Textiles Mills Ltd.: 366 ITR 649 (Mad) " CIT v. Southern Roadways Ltd: 282 ITR 379 (Mad.) " CIT v. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd: 229 Taxman 396 (Mad) " CIT v Southern Roadways Ltd.:288…

Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1958/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

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

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…oftware has been held to be allowable as revenue deduction: " CIT(A) Vs. ACL Wireless Ltd: 361 ITR 210 (Del) " CIT v. Technovate E Solutions P. Ltd: 254 ITR 110 (Del.) " CIT v. Varindra Agro Chemicals: 309 ITR 272 (P&H) " CIT vs Kotak Securities Ltd (No. 1): 346 ITR 349 (Bom) " CIT v. Uhde India P. Ltd: 358 ITR 395 (Bom) " CIT v. IBM India Ltd: 357 ITR 88 (Kar.) " CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. 97 taxmann.com 105(Mad) " CIT v. Shri Renuga Textiles Mills Ltd.: 366 ITR 649 (Mad) " CIT v. Southern Roadways Ltd: 282 ITR 379 (Mad.) " CIT v. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd: 229 Taxman 396 (Mad) " CIT v Southern Roadways Ltd.:288…

Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1957/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2020AY 2003-04

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

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…oftware has been held to be allowable as revenue deduction: " CIT(A) Vs. ACL Wireless Ltd: 361 ITR 210 (Del) " CIT v. Technovate E Solutions P. Ltd: 254 ITR 110 (Del.) " CIT v. Varindra Agro Chemicals: 309 ITR 272 (P&H) " CIT vs Kotak Securities Ltd (No. 1): 346 ITR 349 (Bom) " CIT v. Uhde India P. Ltd: 358 ITR 395 (Bom) " CIT v. IBM India Ltd: 357 ITR 88 (Kar.) " CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. 97 taxmann.com 105(Mad) " CIT v. Shri Renuga Textiles Mills Ltd.: 366 ITR 649 (Mad) " CIT v. Southern Roadways Ltd: 282 ITR 379 (Mad.) " CIT v. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd: 229 Taxman 396 (Mad) " CIT v Southern Roadways Ltd.:288…

Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1956/DEL/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2020AY 2002-03

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

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…oftware has been held to be allowable as revenue deduction: " CIT(A) Vs. ACL Wireless Ltd: 361 ITR 210 (Del) " CIT v. Technovate E Solutions P. Ltd: 254 ITR 110 (Del.) " CIT v. Varindra Agro Chemicals: 309 ITR 272 (P&H) " CIT vs Kotak Securities Ltd (No. 1): 346 ITR 349 (Bom) " CIT v. Uhde India P. Ltd: 358 ITR 395 (Bom) " CIT v. IBM India Ltd: 357 ITR 88 (Kar.) " CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. 97 taxmann.com 105(Mad) " CIT v. Shri Renuga Textiles Mills Ltd.: 366 ITR 649 (Mad) " CIT v. Southern Roadways Ltd: 282 ITR 379 (Mad.) " CIT v. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd: 229 Taxman 396 (Mad) " CIT v Southern Roadways Ltd.:288…

Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1955/DEL/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2020AY 2001-02

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

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…oftware has been held to be allowable as revenue deduction: " CIT(A) Vs. ACL Wireless Ltd: 361 ITR 210 (Del) " CIT v. Technovate E Solutions P. Ltd: 254 ITR 110 (Del.) " CIT v. Varindra Agro Chemicals: 309 ITR 272 (P&H) " CIT vs Kotak Securities Ltd (No. 1): 346 ITR 349 (Bom) " CIT v. Uhde India P. Ltd: 358 ITR 395 (Bom) " CIT v. IBM India Ltd: 357 ITR 88 (Kar.) " CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. 97 taxmann.com 105(Mad) " CIT v. Shri Renuga Textiles Mills Ltd.: 366 ITR 649 (Mad) " CIT v. Southern Roadways Ltd: 282 ITR 379 (Mad.) " CIT v. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd: 229 Taxman 396 (Mad) " CIT v Southern Roadways Ltd.:288…

Mehra Eyetech Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Add. CIT Circle6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1760/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Mehra Eyetech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Add.Cit, Circle 6 (3) 801/B, Lotus Corporation Park, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Graham Firth Steel Compound Mumbai – 400 020 Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 Pan/Gir No.Aaacu2684H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40

…ings for A.Y.2007-08 and 2009-10, copies of which orders are enclosed in pages 12 and 22 of the paper book respectively. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd., reported in 340 ITR 333. We find that this argument of the ld. AR cannot be entertained as that would make the entire provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act redundant. We find that the Hon’ble Madras High Court had already upheld the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Hence, questioning the legislative wisdom of the Parliament…

Dy.C.I.T. 1, Bhilai(Cg) vs. Shri Sandeep Surendran Nair, Bhilai(Cg)

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 318/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.222& 318/Rpr/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11& 2011-12

For Appellant: ShriMakarand Joshi and ShriAniruddhaKavimandanFor Respondent: Smt. AnubhaTahGoel
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43B

…made by the Assessing Officer. A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 a) Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (2014) 45 taxmann.com 555 (Agra – Trib) b) CIT Vs. Virgin Creations (supra) and COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 333 (Bom) 18. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us. 19. Before us, Ld. DR took us through the order of Assessing Officer and further submitted that though the Courts have held the insertion of second proviso to sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act to be declaratory and curative in nature and being retrospective from 1st April, 2…

Dy.C.I.T. 1 vs. Shri Sandeep Surendran Nair, Bhilai(Cg)

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 222/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.222& 318/Rpr/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11& 2011-12

For Appellant: ShriMakarand Joshi and ShriAniruddhaKavimandanFor Respondent: Smt. AnubhaTahGoel
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43B

…made by the Assessing Officer. A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 a) Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (2014) 45 taxmann.com 555 (Agra – Trib) b) CIT Vs. Virgin Creations (supra) and COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 333 (Bom) 18. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us. 19. Before us, Ld. DR took us through the order of Assessing Officer and further submitted that though the Courts have held the insertion of second proviso to sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act to be declaratory and curative in nature and being retrospective from 1st April, 2…

The DCIT, Circle-3(1) (TDS), Vijayawada vs. M/S Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Tirupathi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 452/VIZ/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.452-454/Viz/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Southern Power Circle-3(1) (Tds) Distribution Company Of Vijayawada A.P.Limited Behind Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam Kesavavayana Gunta Tirupati [Pan : Hydso8188F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1217/H/2010,517/Viz/2019 &518/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively) M/S Southern Power Distribution Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Company Of A.P.Limited Income Tax Behind Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam Circle-3(1) (Tds) Kesavavayana Gunta Vijayawada Tirupati [Pan : Hydso8188F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri C.P.Rama Swami, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019

For Appellant: Shri C.P.Rama Swami, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201(1)

…A.Y.2008-09 to 2010-11 M/s Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd., Tirupati Canara Bank V. ITO [2008] 305 ITR (AT) 189 (Ahd) (para 14) CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 139 (Delhi) (paras 13, 14, 23, 25) CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 333 (Bom) (paras 21, 22) Commissioner of Customs v. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. [2002J 253 ITR 274 (SC) (para 25) Continental Construction Ltd. v. CIT [1%2J 195 ITR 81 (SC) (para 14) Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. v. CIT [2007J 293 ITR 226 (SC) (para 18) ITO v. Dr. Willmar Schwabe India P. Ltd. [2005] 3 SOT 71 (Delhi) (para) Medi Assist India…

M/S Kptcl, Hubli vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2301/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V Arvind, Advocate and Shri Dilip, Advocate (Standing counsels)
Section 10Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 200Section 201Section 201(1)

…ore the Assessee has discharged its obligation u/s.192 of the Act and hence proceedings u/s.201(1)( & 201(1A) of the Act were to be quashed. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. 340 ITR 333 (Bombay) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court took the view that when the question whether there was an obligation to deduct tax at source or not on a particular payment, is highly debatable then the Assessee cannot be held to be a defaulter for not deducting tax at source and consequently no disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deducti…

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 382/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodmahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Mahindra Towers, Income Tax, Range-2(2) Vs. Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaacm3025E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek A. Perampurna, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 40Section 40a

…. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2(2) the disallowance to the said extent made under Sec. 40(a)(ia) in its hands shall stand vacated. 13. Insofar the reliance placed by the ld. A.R on the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 333 (Bom) is concerned, we find that the same is found to be distinguishable on facts. In the aforesaid case, as both the revenue and the assessee were under a bonafide belief as regards the liability to deduct TDS on transaction charges paid to the Bombay Stock Exchange right from the year 1995 i.e. coming into effect of Section 194J, till the asses…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1351/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Amount of Proposed international
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…x at source, which was always accepted by the Revenue, the applicant was under the bonafide belief that no tax was required to be deducted there from and accordingly, having regard to the decision of Bombay High Court in the case CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd.: 245 CTR 3, no disallowance was warranted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, without prejudice, the Ld. AR submitted, that since the payees have also paid tax on the income received/ receivable from the applicant, no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for alleged default in deduction of tax at source by the assessee . The…

M/S Kptcl, Bangalore vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2458/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…ore the Assessee has discharged its obligation u/s.192 of the Act and hence proceedings u/s.201(1)( & 201(1A) of the Act were to be quashed. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. 340 ITR 333 (Bombay) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court took the view that when the question whether there was an obligation to deduct tax at source or not on a particular payment, is highly debatable then the Assessee cannot be held to be a defaulter for not deducting tax at source ITA No.2379 to 2458/B/2017 Page 11 of 21 and consequently no disallowan…

M/S Kptcl, Bangalore vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2457/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…ore the Assessee has discharged its obligation u/s.192 of the Act and hence proceedings u/s.201(1)( & 201(1A) of the Act were to be quashed. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. 340 ITR 333 (Bombay) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court took the view that when the question whether there was an obligation to deduct tax at source or not on a particular payment, is highly debatable then the Assessee cannot be held to be a defaulter for not deducting tax at source ITA No.2379 to 2458/B/2017 Page 11 of 21 and consequently no disallowan…

M/S Kptcl, Hassan vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2456/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…ore the Assessee has discharged its obligation u/s.192 of the Act and hence proceedings u/s.201(1)( & 201(1A) of the Act were to be quashed. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. 340 ITR 333 (Bombay) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court took the view that when the question whether there was an obligation to deduct tax at source or not on a particular payment, is highly debatable then the Assessee cannot be held to be a defaulter for not deducting tax at source ITA No.2379 to 2458/B/2017 Page 11 of 21 and consequently no disallowan…

M/S Kptcl, Hassan vs. ITO(OSD)(TDS)Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2455/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 17(1)(va)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…ore the Assessee has discharged its obligation u/s.192 of the Act and hence proceedings u/s.201(1)( & 201(1A) of the Act were to be quashed. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. 340 ITR 333 (Bombay) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court took the view that when the question whether there was an obligation to deduct tax at source or not on a particular payment, is highly debatable then the Assessee cannot be held to be a defaulter for not deducting tax at source ITA No.2379 to 2458/B/2017 Page 11 of 21 and consequently no disallowan…