DIT v. Maersk Co. Ltd.

334 ITR 79High Court2011#2394 most cited

What is DIT v. Maersk Co. Ltd. authority for?

An assessee is not liable to pay advance tax or interest under Section 234B on income that was subject to tax deduction at source by the payer, even if the payer failed to deduct such tax. The provisions relating to payment of tax and payment of interest operate in different areas, implying that the failure of the deductor does not automatically shift advance tax liability to the recipient in such cases.

48

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

DIT v. Maersk Co. Ltd. · 334 ITR 79 · Section 234B interest · advance tax liability · tax deduction at source failure · employer non-deduction · employee advance tax · Chapter XVII Income-tax Act · sections 190 · 191 · 201 · non-resident advance tax

Judgments citing DIT v. Maersk Co. Ltd.

M/S. Bg International Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Dehradun

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

ITA 3640/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153(4)

…arguments of both the sides and perusing the decisions of Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court and Delhi High Court, we are unable to agree with the contention of ld. CIT DR (Intl. Tax). The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of DIT vs. Maersk Co. Ltd., 334 ITR 79, held as under:- “Looking into the scheme of Chapter XVII of the Income tax Act, 1961 it is clear that the provisions relating to payment of tax and those relating to payment of interest operate in two different areas. From a combined reading of sections 190, 191, 192, 198, 200, 201, 203 and 204 of the Act, it is clear that as soon as tax is ded…

M/S. Bg International Ltd., Mumbai vs. JCIT (International Taxation), Dehradun

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

ITA 245/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153(4)

…arguments of both the sides and perusing the decisions of Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court and Delhi High Court, we are unable to agree with the contention of ld. CIT DR (Intl. Tax). The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of DIT vs. Maersk Co. Ltd., 334 ITR 79, held as under:- “Looking into the scheme of Chapter XVII of the Income tax Act, 1961 it is clear that the provisions relating to payment of tax and those relating to payment of interest operate in two different areas. From a combined reading of sections 190, 191, 192, 198, 200, 201, 203 and 204 of the Act, it is clear that as soon as tax is ded…

DDIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Ongc As Representative Assessee of M/S. Computer Modeling Group Ltd., Dehradun

ITA 1965/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Pal, Sr. DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

…40 & 6170/Del/2012; & 1892 & 1965/Del/2014 case of DIT vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. (2015) 373 ITR 65 (Del) and also the assessee’s own case for assessment year and also the judgment of Uttarakhand High Court in the case of DIT vs. Maersk Company Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 79 (UK). 11. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the CIT (A) and pointed out that the judgements referred and relied upon by the ld. counsel are distinguishable and, in support, has strongly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronic Company Ltd. (2012) 345 IT…

M/S. Ongc As Representative Assessee of Computer Modeling Group Ltd., Dehradun vs. ADIT, Dehradun

ITA 1892/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Pal, Sr. DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

…40 & 6170/Del/2012; & 1892 & 1965/Del/2014 case of DIT vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. (2015) 373 ITR 65 (Del) and also the assessee’s own case for assessment year and also the judgment of Uttarakhand High Court in the case of DIT vs. Maersk Company Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 79 (UK). 11. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the CIT (A) and pointed out that the judgements referred and relied upon by the ld. counsel are distinguishable and, in support, has strongly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronic Company Ltd. (2012) 345 IT…

M/S. Ongc As Representative A/O Computer Modelling Group Ltd., Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

ITA 6170/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Pal, Sr. DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

…40 & 6170/Del/2012; & 1892 & 1965/Del/2014 case of DIT vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. (2015) 373 ITR 65 (Del) and also the assessee’s own case for assessment year and also the judgment of Uttarakhand High Court in the case of DIT vs. Maersk Company Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 79 (UK). 11. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the CIT (A) and pointed out that the judgements referred and relied upon by the ld. counsel are distinguishable and, in support, has strongly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronic Company Ltd. (2012) 345 IT…

Ongc As Representative Assessee of Computer Modelling Group Ltd., Dehradun vs. ADIT, Dehradun

ITA 440/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Pal, Sr. DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

…40 & 6170/Del/2012; & 1892 & 1965/Del/2014 case of DIT vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. (2015) 373 ITR 65 (Del) and also the assessee’s own case for assessment year and also the judgment of Uttarakhand High Court in the case of DIT vs. Maersk Company Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 79 (UK). 11. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the CIT (A) and pointed out that the judgements referred and relied upon by the ld. counsel are distinguishable and, in support, has strongly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronic Company Ltd. (2012) 345 IT…

Ongc As Representative Assessee of Computer Modelling Group Ltd., Dehradun vs. DDIT, Dehradun

ITA 3908/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Pal, Sr. DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

…40 & 6170/Del/2012; & 1892 & 1965/Del/2014 case of DIT vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. (2015) 373 ITR 65 (Del) and also the assessee’s own case for assessment year and also the judgment of Uttarakhand High Court in the case of DIT vs. Maersk Company Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 79 (UK). 11. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the CIT (A) and pointed out that the judgements referred and relied upon by the ld. counsel are distinguishable and, in support, has strongly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronic Company Ltd. (2012) 345 IT…

Bg Exploration & Production India Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Dehradun

ITA 6791/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144C

…been determined in favour of the taxpayer in its own case for AY 2010-11 (supra). Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal by relying upon the decisions rendered by Hon’ble 47 ITA No.6791/Del./2017 Uttarakhand High Court in case of CIT vs. Maersk Company Limited – 334 ITR 79 and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of DIT vs. GE Packaged Power Incorporation – 373 ITR 65 directed the AO not to charge the interest u/s 234B of the Act on the income of the taxpayer which is liable to tax deduction at source by returning following findings :- “61. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the relev…

DDIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Tidewater Marine Internatioanl Inc., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6166/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. M/S. Ddit, International Taxation, Tidewater Marine International Inc., 17Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 13A-Subhash Road, Dehradun Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Tolstoys Marg, New Delhi Pan : Aaact7573Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Gaurav Dudeja, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Amit Arora, Ca Date Of Hearing 31.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 192Section 2Section 234BSection 44BSection 44DSection 9

…g the services. 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') was not chargeable in this case by relying upon the case of M/s Maersk [334 ITR 79]. a. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the case of M/s Maersk was distinguishable on facts as it dealt with a case where the employer failed to deduct tax at source despite the specific provisions of the Act in terms of which the employer was mandatorily required to deduct tax from the salary paid to the employee. In the sa…

DDIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Almansoori Sperialized Engineering Co., Dehradun

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

ITA 3907/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Almansoori Ddit, International Taxation, Sperialized Dehradun Engineering Co., C/O- M/S. Nangia & Co., Cas 75/7, Raipur Road, Dehradun. Pan : Aaaca9529M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sr. S.K. Jain, Sr.Dr Respondent By S/Sh. Amit Arora & Vishal Mishra, Cas Date Of Hearing 11.04.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 26.04.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 23/04/2014 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Dehradun (In Short “The Cit-A”) For Assessment Year 2010-11, Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 192Section 234BSection 44BSection 44DSection 9

…d accordingly. 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ‘the Act’) was not chargeable in this case by relying upon the case of M/s Maersk [334 ITR 79]. 6.1) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the case of M/s Maersk was distinguishable on facts as it dealt with a case where the employer failed to deduct tax at source despite the specific provisions of the Act in terms of which the employer was mandatorily required to deduct tax from the salary paid to the employee. In th…

DCIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Ltd., Dehradun

In the result, the appeals of the department as well as Cross

ITA 6584/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 6584/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs M/S Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Ltd., C/O-Nangia & Co., Cas, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-1, Ncr Plaza, New Cantt. Road, Dehradun-248001 Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb3714F Co No. 216/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O-Nangia & Co., Cas, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (International Ncr Plaza, New Cantt. Road, Taxation), Circle-1, Dehradun-248001 Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb3714F

For Appellant: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Arora & Sh. Vishal Misra, CAs

Section 44BSection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ng the services. 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') was not chargeable in this case by relying upon the case of M/s Maersk [334 ITR 79]. a. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the case of M/s Maersk was ITA Nos. 6584 & 6588/Del/2014 6 CO No. 216/Del/2015 Baker Hughes Asia & Singapore Ltd. distinguishable on facts as it dealt with a case where the employer failed to deduct tax at source despite the specific provisions of the Act in terms of which the emplo…

DCIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Expro Gulf Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 6589/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Arora, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

…g the services. 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act’) was not chargeable in this case by relying upon the case of M/s Maersk [334 ITR 79]. a. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the case of M/s Maersk was distinguishable on facts as it dealt with a case where the employer failed to deduct tax at source despite the specific provisions of the Act in terms of which the employer was mandatorily required to deduct tax from the salary paid to the employee. In the…

DDIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Cgg Veritas Services Sa, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6142/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Arora, C.A

Section 234Section 234BSection 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

…case and in law, the Ld CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that the assessee is not 3 ITA No.6142/Del./2014 liable to pay interest u/s 2348 of the Act and in observing that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by decision in the case of M/s Maersk [334 ITR 79, Uttarakhand ]. 8.1 The Ld CIT (Appeals) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the case of M.s Maersk was distinguishable on facts wherein the employer failed to deduct tax at source despite the specific mandatory provisions of the Act stipulating the employer being liable to deduct tax on the salary paid to the employee, thereby holding th…

ADIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Clough Engineering Ltd., Mumbai

In the result ground No. 9 of the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 172/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Clough Engineering Ltd, C/0. Srbc Associates, 14Th Floor, International Taxation, Vs. 13-A, Subhash Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Ruby 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Dehradun (West), Mumbai, Pan:Aabcc6248C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. GC Srivatava, Adv

…of 10 21. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and we are of the view that despite the pendency of SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the ld CIT(A) has decided the issue following the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdiction High Court in case of 334 ITR 79 which is binding on him as well as on us. Therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A). in the result ground No. 9 of the appeal of revenue is dismissed. 22. Now we come to cross objection filed by the assessee. 23. As per the cross objection filed vide ground No. 1,2 and 3 the assessee has challenged the confirmation of th…

Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed whereas Cross objections are dismissed

ITA 1722/CHNY/2011[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. N. Venkatraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.M. Doss, IRS,CIT

Section 234ASection 234BSection 260ASection 9(1)

…20 & 21/09. 0187, that of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. Jacabs Civil Mitsubishi Corporation 330 ITR 578, and DIT vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. (2015) 373 ITR 65 and that of Hon’ble Uttaranchal High Court in the case of DIT vs. Maersk Co. Ltd 334 ITR 79. Ld. Authorised Representative also relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of De Beers UK Ltd vs. DDIT (2012) 53 SOT 319. 3. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that levy of interest u/s.234B of the Act was mandatory in nature. 4 We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authori…

M/S Verizon Communications Singapore Pte. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed whereas Cross objections are dismissed

ITA 1507/CHNY/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. N. Venkatraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.M. Doss, IRS,CIT

Section 234ASection 234BSection 260ASection 9(1)

…20 & 21/09. 0187, that of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. Jacabs Civil Mitsubishi Corporation 330 ITR 578, and DIT vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. (2015) 373 ITR 65 and that of Hon’ble Uttaranchal High Court in the case of DIT vs. Maersk Co. Ltd 334 ITR 79. Ld. Authorised Representative also relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of De Beers UK Ltd vs. DDIT (2012) 53 SOT 319. 3. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that levy of interest u/s.234B of the Act was mandatory in nature. 4 We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authori…

M/S Verizon Communications Singapore Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Mci Worldcom Asia Pvt. Ltd.), Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed whereas Cross objections are dismissed

ITA 164/CHNY/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. N. Venkatraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.M. Doss, IRS,CIT

Section 234ASection 234BSection 260ASection 9(1)

…20 & 21/09. 0187, that of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. Jacabs Civil Mitsubishi Corporation 330 ITR 578, and DIT vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. (2015) 373 ITR 65 and that of Hon’ble Uttaranchal High Court in the case of DIT vs. Maersk Co. Ltd 334 ITR 79. Ld. Authorised Representative also relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of De Beers UK Ltd vs. DDIT (2012) 53 SOT 319. 3. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that levy of interest u/s.234B of the Act was mandatory in nature. 4 We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authori…

M/S Verizon Communications Singapore Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Mci Worldcom Asia Pvt. Ltd.), Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed whereas Cross objections are dismissed

ITA 1311/CHNY/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. N. Venkatraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.M. Doss, IRS,CIT

Section 234ASection 234BSection 260ASection 9(1)

…20 & 21/09. 0187, that of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. Jacabs Civil Mitsubishi Corporation 330 ITR 578, and DIT vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. (2015) 373 ITR 65 and that of Hon’ble Uttaranchal High Court in the case of DIT vs. Maersk Co. Ltd 334 ITR 79. Ld. Authorised Representative also relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of De Beers UK Ltd vs. DDIT (2012) 53 SOT 319. 3. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that levy of interest u/s.234B of the Act was mandatory in nature. 4 We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authori…

DCIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee both are dismissed

ITA 6585/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Smt. Beena A. Pillai Smt. Beena A. Pillaismt. Beena A. Pillai Smt. Beena A. Pillai

Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vi)

…ads as under:- “7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) was not chargeable in this case by relying upon the case of M/s Maersk [334 ITR 79]. a. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the case of M/s Maersk was distinguishable on facts as it dealt with a case where the employer failed to deduct tax at source despite the specific provisions of the Act in terms of which the employer was mandatorily required to deduct tax from the salary paid to the employee. In the s…

ADIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Siem Offshore Inc., Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 173/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)

…for. the purposes of section 44 BB computation). 5.0 Ground number 3 challenges the charging of interest u/s. 234B and 234D of the Act. The issue of charging u/s. 234B of the Act is covered in favour of the Appellant by the case of Maersk Company report in 334 ITR 79 (UK). The interest u/s. 9 234D of the Act would be consequential after giving effect to this Appellate order. 6.0 I the result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 5.1 We also find that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1811/Del/2013 (AY 2009-10) vide order dated 17.4.2015 has adjudicated the similar issues and decided the same in favou…