CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation

305 ITR 137High Court2008#1182 most cited

What is CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation authority for?

When no specific statutory period of limitation exists, proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, particularly for payments to non-residents, must be initiated within a reasonable period of four years. This limitation also applies to consequential penalty proceedings under Section 271C.

96

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation · 305 ITR 137 · Section 201 limitation · Section 201(1) reasonable time · Section 201(1A) limitation · assessee in default non-resident · penalty Section 271C limitation · four years limitation · no statutory limitation · TDS proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 201Section 271CSection 273BSection 120(4)(b)Section 124(3)Section 127
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 201(3)assessee in defaultpenalty proceedings initiatedsection 273section 201(1)section 201section 201(1a)section 273bsection 20section 195section 19non-resident

Judgments citing CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cir2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3745/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2007) 11 SCC 363 • State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha and others AIR 1960 SCC 1297 • SantoshKumar Shivgonda patil & Ors vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 352 • CIT vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (2008) 305 ITR 137 (Del) • CIT vs. Hutchison Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 320 (Del) Thus, it was submitted by the learned DR that if no time limit is prescribed for filing additional ground, it does not mean that it can be filed after any lapse of time in a reckless manner. Even when no time limit is provided for filing additional grounds, they should be filed w…

The ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3658/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2007) 11 SCC 363 • State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha and others AIR 1960 SCC 1297 • SantoshKumar Shivgonda patil & Ors vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 352 • CIT vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (2008) 305 ITR 137 (Del) • CIT vs. Hutchison Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 320 (Del) Thus, it was submitted by the learned DR that if no time limit is prescribed for filing additional ground, it does not mean that it can be filed after any lapse of time in a reckless manner. Even when no time limit is provided for filing additional grounds, they should be filed w…

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT Cir. 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 193/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2007) 11 SCC 363 • State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha and others AIR 1960 SCC 1297 • SantoshKumar Shivgonda patil & Ors vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 352 • CIT vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (2008) 305 ITR 137 (Del) • CIT vs. Hutchison Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 320 (Del) Thus, it was submitted by the learned DR that if no time limit is prescribed for filing additional ground, it does not mean that it can be filed after any lapse of time in a reckless manner. Even when no time limit is provided for filing additional grounds, they should be filed w…

M/S. Sms Iron Technology Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the a ssc ssee for financial year

ITA 4486/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I-I.S.Sidhu & Shri Prast{Ant Maharishi

Section 195Section 9(1)(vi)

…any basis. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The Assessing Officer has issued the show cause notice on 01. 03.2006 to the assessee for FY 1999-2000 to 2005-06. The Hori'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. NHKJapan Broadcasting Corporation in 305 ITR 137 in para No. 21 has held that where no limitation is prescribed as in section 201 of the Act then action must be initiated within the period of 4 years. Accordingly, the notice issued on 01.03.2006 can cover only the period of four years preceding that year. In the present case the financial year arc 1999-2000 to 2005-06, FY therefore, the ld Asse…

M/S. Sms Iron Technology Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the a ssc ssee for financial year

ITA 4485/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I-I.S.Sidhu & Shri Prast{Ant Maharishi

Section 195Section 9(1)(vi)

…any basis. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The Assessing Officer has issued the show cause notice on 01. 03.2006 to the assessee for FY 1999-2000 to 2005-06. The Hori'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. NHKJapan Broadcasting Corporation in 305 ITR 137 in para No. 21 has held that where no limitation is prescribed as in section 201 of the Act then action must be initiated within the period of 4 years. Accordingly, the notice issued on 01.03.2006 can cover only the period of four years preceding that year. In the present case the financial year arc 1999-2000 to 2005-06, FY therefore, the ld Asse…

M/S. Sms Iron Technology Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the a ssc ssee for financial year

ITA 4484/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri I-I.S.Sidhu & Shri Prast{Ant Maharishi

Section 195Section 9(1)(vi)

…any basis. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The Assessing Officer has issued the show cause notice on 01. 03.2006 to the assessee for FY 1999-2000 to 2005-06. The Hori'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. NHKJapan Broadcasting Corporation in 305 ITR 137 in para No. 21 has held that where no limitation is prescribed as in section 201 of the Act then action must be initiated within the period of 4 years. Accordingly, the notice issued on 01.03.2006 can cover only the period of four years preceding that year. In the present case the financial year arc 1999-2000 to 2005-06, FY therefore, the ld Asse…

M/S. Sms Iron Technology Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the a ssc ssee for financial year

ITA 4483/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri I-I.S.Sidhu & Shri Prast{Ant Maharishi

Section 195Section 9(1)(vi)

…any basis. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The Assessing Officer has issued the show cause notice on 01. 03.2006 to the assessee for FY 1999-2000 to 2005-06. The Hori'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. NHKJapan Broadcasting Corporation in 305 ITR 137 in para No. 21 has held that where no limitation is prescribed as in section 201 of the Act then action must be initiated within the period of 4 years. Accordingly, the notice issued on 01.03.2006 can cover only the period of four years preceding that year. In the present case the financial year arc 1999-2000 to 2005-06, FY therefore, the ld Asse…

M/S. Sms Iron Technology Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the a ssc ssee for financial year

ITA 4482/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri I-I.S.Sidhu & Shri Prast{Ant Maharishi

Section 195Section 9(1)(vi)

…any basis. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The Assessing Officer has issued the show cause notice on 01. 03.2006 to the assessee for FY 1999-2000 to 2005-06. The Hori'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. NHKJapan Broadcasting Corporation in 305 ITR 137 in para No. 21 has held that where no limitation is prescribed as in section 201 of the Act then action must be initiated within the period of 4 years. Accordingly, the notice issued on 01.03.2006 can cover only the period of four years preceding that year. In the present case the financial year arc 1999-2000 to 2005-06, FY therefore, the ld Asse…

M/S. Sms Iron Technology Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the a ssc ssee for financial year

ITA 4480/DEL/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri I-I.S.Sidhu & Shri Prast{Ant Maharishi

Section 195Section 9(1)(vi)

…any basis. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The Assessing Officer has issued the show cause notice on 01. 03.2006 to the assessee for FY 1999-2000 to 2005-06. The Hori'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. NHKJapan Broadcasting Corporation in 305 ITR 137 in para No. 21 has held that where no limitation is prescribed as in section 201 of the Act then action must be initiated within the period of 4 years. Accordingly, the notice issued on 01.03.2006 can cover only the period of four years preceding that year. In the present case the financial year arc 1999-2000 to 2005-06, FY therefore, the ld Asse…

M/S. Bony Polymers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 3273/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Taneja & Sh. Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.C. Dandey, Sr. DR
Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(k)

…the penalty levied by the JCIT is also barred by limitation since such penalty has been is levied in the year 2012 for the AY 2005-06. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation reported in 305 ITR 137, he submitted that such penalty having been initiated beyond a reasonable period of four years should be held as barred by limitation. 6. The learned DR, on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that the learned CIT(A) has categorically held that the question of the order getting barred by limitation does not exis…

Sh. Ravinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5309/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh.

For Appellant: ShriAshok Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 234D

…se statutory levies are non returnable. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the decision of Galloti Roul Vs ACIT 61 ITD 453 (Prom) and NHK-Japan Broad Casting Corporation Vs. CIT 101 TTJ 292 (Del) approved by Hon’ble Delhi High Court by judgment cited 291 ITR 331 (Del). A perusal of decisions in the case of Gallotti Raoul reveals that the nature of deduction was in respect of social security contribution to social security organization formed under the statute for all French national regardless of type of remuneration. There is overriding title at the stage of earning point itself.. Similarly, in the case…

Sh. Ravinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5308/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh.

For Appellant: ShriAshok Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 234D

…se statutory levies are non returnable. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the decision of Galloti Roul Vs ACIT 61 ITD 453 (Prom) and NHK-Japan Broad Casting Corporation Vs. CIT 101 TTJ 292 (Del) approved by Hon’ble Delhi High Court by judgment cited 291 ITR 331 (Del). A perusal of decisions in the case of Gallotti Raoul reveals that the nature of deduction was in respect of social security contribution to social security organization formed under the statute for all French national regardless of type of remuneration. There is overriding title at the stage of earning point itself.. Similarly, in the case…

Sh. Ravinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5310/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh.

For Appellant: ShriAshok Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 234D

…se statutory levies are non returnable. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the decision of Galloti Roul Vs ACIT 61 ITD 453 (Prom) and NHK-Japan Broad Casting Corporation Vs. CIT 101 TTJ 292 (Del) approved by Hon’ble Delhi High Court by judgment cited 291 ITR 331 (Del). A perusal of decisions in the case of Gallotti Raoul reveals that the nature of deduction was in respect of social security contribution to social security organization formed under the statute for all French national regardless of type of remuneration. There is overriding title at the stage of earning point itself.. Similarly, in the case…

M/S. Hamir Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5799/DEL/2015[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana,CIT (D.R.)
Section 201Section 201(3)

…t is barred by limitation, as the same has been done beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant financial year. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corpn., 305 ITR 137 (Del), which has been reiterated in a recent judgment by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. Union of India, 245 taxman 80 (Del), that the initiation of proceedings under section 201 after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year is unjustified. Apart from that, catena of other judgments have als…

Hatway Nasik Cable Network P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. TRO (TDS) 1, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Allowed

ITA 5190/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.5190/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) बनाम/ Hathway Nasik Cable The Tax Recovery Officer Network Private Limited (Tds) Rg. -1 Vs. Rahejas, 4Th Floor, Corners Smt. K.G.Mittal Ayurvedic Of Main Avenue & V.P.Road, Hospital Bldg. Santacruz (West) Charni Road – West, Mumbai - 400054 Mumbai - 400002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaach9070Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Manoj DixitFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi Ningshen
Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

…ideration the various provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been held to be four years in a number of cases. The appellant, in support of its contentions, relies on the following judicial pronouncements: CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation[(2008) 305 ITR 137 (Del HC)] The Hon’ble court held that, the date of knowledge was not relevant for the purposes of the exercising jurisdiction in so far as the provisions of the Act were concerned. The time limit of four years prescribed by the Tribunal called for no interference and action was to be initiated by the competent authority under the Act where ITA N…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd, Lucknow

In the result, all the four cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3310/DEL/2009[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…301 to 304/ Del/2009 and 251 to 258/del/2011 A Y 1993-94 , 1999-2000 to 2005-06 and 2009-10 Page 28 of 34 (b) CIT Vs Hissaria Brothers 291 ITR 244 (Raj.) (c) Shanbhag Restaurant vs DCIT, 266 ITR 393 (Karnataka); (d) CIT Vs NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation 305 ITR 137 (del.) 6. It is also submitted that although the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Diwan Chand Amrit Lal Vs CIT 98 ITD 200 (Chd. S.B.) is against the assessee but as per this decision of the special bench of the Tribunal, the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of Hissaria Brothers Vs DCIT as reported in 73 TTJ…

Hathway C-Net P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Tax Recovery (TDS) 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 4261/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 201Section 201(1)

…Court which are on the same principle and as to whether in the absence of any time limit the proceedings under Sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could be initiated at any Income Tax v/s NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation reported in (2008) 305 ITR 137 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court upheld the view of the Tribunal and dismissed the Revenue's Appeal [Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Hutchison Essar Telecome Ltd. reported in (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Delhi)]. 31 In the case of NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (supra), the Honourable Mr. Justice Madan b. Lokur (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the…

Hathway Cable & Datacom Ltd, Mumbai vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 3512/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 201Section 201(1)

…Court which are on the same principle and as to whether in the absence of any time limit the proceedings under Sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could be initiated at any Income Tax v/s NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation reported in (2008) 305 ITR 137 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court upheld the view of the Tribunal and dismissed the Revenue's Appeal [Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Hutchison Essar Telecome Ltd. reported in (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Delhi)]. 31 In the case of NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (supra), the Honourable Mr. Justice Madan b. Lokur (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Samsung India Electronics (P) Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4853/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Sri G.D. Agarwal, Hon’Blesri C.M.Garg

For Appellant: Sh. Rupesh Jain, CA, Ms. Bhavita Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 153Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…rmises and conjectures. Therefore, impugned order may be set aside by restoring that of the AO. 4. Replying to the above the Ld. AR placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation Ltd. 305 ITR 137(Delhi) and decision in the case of CIT vs. Hutchinson Essar Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Delhi) submitted that when proceedings u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act was initiated after 4 years from the end of relevant FY then the same are barred by limitation. The Ld. AR strongly supporting the conclusion of the CIT(A) submitted that the Revenue aut…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Catholic Relief Services, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 506/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Sri C.M.Garg, Jm & Sri O.P. Kant, Am Ita No. 506/Del./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03

For Appellant: Dr. Ram Sameyh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sri C.M.Garg, JM AND Sri O.P. Kant, AM ITA No. 506/Del./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 DCIT Vs Catholic Relief Services Circle-49(1), 139, Shopping Complex, Zamrudpur Kailash Colony Extn., New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACFC6156D Assessee by : Dr. Ram Sameyh, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07.01.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2016 ORDER PER C.M.Garg, J.M. This appeal by the Revenue has been directed against the order of the CIT(A) – XXX, New Delhi dated 25.11.2013 passed in appeal no…