Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Dr. N.K. Gupta

258 ITR 337Reported decision2002#8350 most cited

What is Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Dr. N.K. Gupta authority for?

Section 194A of the Income-tax Act does not apply to payments made by way of damages for failure to fulfill contractual obligations, as such payments are not related to deposits, loans, or borrowings and thus fall outside the definition of 'interest' under section 2(28A).

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Dr. N.K. Gupta · section 194A · section 2(28A) · interest · damages · TDS · Income-tax Act · withholding tax · contractual obligations

Sections most often in play

Section 194ASection 194HSection 2(28A)Section 201(1)Section 201(1A)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 2(28a)section 133a(2a)section 80hsection 194hsection 80hhcinterest on securitiesinterest under section 201(1a)section 80hhsection 194asection 57section 201(1a)section 36(1)(iii)

Judgments citing Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Dr. N.K. Gupta

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2633/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 194ASection 194HSection 2Section 201Section 201(1)Section 222Section 271C

…interest as per section 2(28A) of the Income-tax Act. While pondering upon the issue, we have come across a decision of Respected National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, wherein in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Dr. N.K. Gupta [2002] 258 ITR 337 (NCDRC), it was held as under :- "Held, affirming the order of the State Commission, that section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, did not apply to the payment made by the petitioner Authority. The Authority was asked to pay interest on the amount refunded to the complainant because of its failure to construct the promised flat and to provide th…

M/S Standard Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.7(2), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 178/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 194ASection 2Section 40

…2015-16 M/s. Standard Financial Consultants Private Limited. borrowings. A payment having no nexus with a deposit, loan or borrowing is out of the ambit of the definition of interest as per s. 2(28A).—Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Dr. N.K. Gupta (2002) 258 ITR 337 (NCDRC) relied on. The term "interest" used in s. 194A relates to and in connection of a debt or a loan or a deposit. The circumstances under which the assessee is required to deduct the tax have also been narrated. Therefore, a conclusion can be drawn that if a payment is compensatory in nature and not related to any deposit/debt/loan, then such…

Bhupinder Singh Julka, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-Int. Tax. 2(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1807/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 80T

…id to persons whose land had been compulsorily acquired was held to be a revenue receipt (and not a capital receipt) and therefore not falling within the purview of section 194A. The Court also relied on Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Dr N.K. Gupta [2002] 258 ITR 337 (NCDRC) where it was held that section 194A had no application to payment of interest made to the allottees for ITA No.-1807/Del/2022 Bhupinder Singh Julka delayed completion of flats. Hence, although the Madras High Court decision in Viswapriya Financial Services & Securities Ltd's case (supra) gives a more inclusive definition of the term 'inte…

DCIT (TDS)(OSD) - 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Wockhardt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2131/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit (Tds) (Osd)-2(3), M/S Wockhardt Ltd., Room No. 310, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Building, Cumballa Hill, Vs. Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacw 2472 M Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Pranay Gandhi, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/12/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Pranay Gandhi, AR
Section 194H

…ion of Respected National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, wherein in the case of Ghaziabad Development Commission, wherein in the case of Ghaziabad Development Commission, wherein in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Dr. N.K. Gupta [2002] 258 ITR 337 (NCDRC), it Authority v. Dr. N.K. Gupta [2002] 258 ITR 337 (NCDRC), it Authority v. Dr. N.K. Gupta [2002] 258 ITR 337 (NCDRC), it was held as under : was held as under :— "Held, affirming the order of the State Commission, that "Held, affirming the order of the State Commission, that "Held, affirming the order of the State Commission, that secti…

DCIT (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Limited, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2314/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vallabh Gokhale, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, D.R
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…interest as per section 2(28A) of the Income-tax Act. While pondering upon the issue, we have come across a decision of Respected National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, wherein in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Dr. N.K. Gupta [2002] 258 ITR 337 (NCDRC), it was held as under :- "Held, affirming the order of the State Commission, that section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, did not apply to the payment made by the petitioner Authority. The Authority was asked to pay interest on the amount refunded to the complainant because of its failure to construct the promised flat and to provide t…

JCIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(3). Mumbai, Mumbai vs. M/S Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012–

ITA 894/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…interest as per section 2(28A) of the Income-tax Act. While pondering upon the issue, we have come across a decision of Respected National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, wherein in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Dr. N.K. Gupta [2002] 258 ITR 337 (NCDRC), it was held as under :— "Held, affirming the order of the State Commission, that section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, did not apply to the payment made by the petitioner Authority. The Authority was asked to pay interest on the amount refunded to the complainant because of its failure to construct the promised flat and to provide th…

JCIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai. vs. M/S Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012–

ITA 893/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…interest as per section 2(28A) of the Income-tax Act. While pondering upon the issue, we have come across a decision of Respected National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, wherein in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Dr. N.K. Gupta [2002] 258 ITR 337 (NCDRC), it was held as under :— "Held, affirming the order of the State Commission, that section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, did not apply to the payment made by the petitioner Authority. The Authority was asked to pay interest on the amount refunded to the complainant because of its failure to construct the promised flat and to provide th…

DCIT (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds (c) raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6803/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6803/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit (Tds)-2(3), M/S Wockhardt Ltd. 6Th Floor, Wockhardt Smt. K. G. Mittal बिधम/ Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg. Tower, G Block, Bandra Vs. Room No. 718, 7Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra, Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacw2472M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 51/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Wockhardt Ltd. Dcit (Tds)-2(3), 6Th Floor, Wockhardt Smt. K. G. Mittal बिधम/ Tower, G Block, Bandra Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg. Vs. Room No. 718, 7Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra, Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 002 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anand Mohan, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Kirit Kamdar, Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.11.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Anand Mohan, DRFor Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar, AR
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6803/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) DCIT (TDS)-2(3), M/s Wockhardt Ltd. 6th floor, Wockhardt Smt. K. G. Mittal बिधम/ Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg. Tower, G Block, Bandra Vs. Room No. 718, 7th floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra, Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAACW2472M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 51/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s Wockhardt Ltd. DCIT (TDS)-2(3), 6th floor…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ins Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 616/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Hon’Ble & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Satya Jeet Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Mahar, Sr.DR
Section 145ASection 56(1)

…and the bank. Therefore, it was stated that the dispute had not reached any finality and therefore, no interest or damages have accrued to the assessee finally. The assessee further relied on the decision of Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Dr. N. K. Gupta 258 ITR 337 wherein it has been held that merely because the damages are stated to be interest they cannot be subject to tax as interest. We have also carefully perused the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 03.12.2008 wherein in para No. 22 has set aside the sale, and the bank was directed to refund the sale consideration originally accep…

Harbhajan Singh, Burdwan vs. I.T.O WD - 1(4), Kolkata, Asansol

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1076/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 269S

…cted with any debt, with a payment having connection with the borrowings. A payment having no nexus with a deposit, loan or borrowing is out of the ambit of the definition of interest as per s. 2(28A).—Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Dr. N.K. Gupta (2002) 258 ITR 337 (NCDRC) relied on. The term "interest" used in s. 194A relates to and in connection of a debt or a loan or a deposit. The circumstances under which the assessee is required to deduct the tax have also been narrated. Therefore, a conclusion can be drawn that if a payment is compensatory in nature and not related to any deposit/debt/loan, then such…

West Bengal Housing Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. The I.T.O, Ward-11(1), Kolkata

In the result ITA No.213/Kol/2012 of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1739/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 194ASection 40

…no obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source u/s 194A of the Act. The ld. Counsel placed reliance on the following two decisions :- i) CIT vs H.P.Housing Board (2012) 340 ITR 388 (HP) ii) Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Dfr. N.K.Gupta 258 ITR 337. In the case of H.P. Housing Board there was a delay in construction of house and therefore H.P.Housing Board paid interest to the allottees on the agreed rate in terms of the letter of allotment. The question before the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court was as to whether the same constitute interest within the meaning of section 2(28A) of the…

DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S. West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Dev. Corpn. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result ITA No.213/Kol/2012 of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 213/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 194ASection 40

…no obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source u/s 194A of the Act. The ld. Counsel placed reliance on the following two decisions :- i) CIT vs H.P.Housing Board (2012) 340 ITR 388 (HP) ii) Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Dfr. N.K.Gupta 258 ITR 337. In the case of H.P. Housing Board there was a delay in construction of house and therefore H.P.Housing Board paid interest to the allottees on the agreed rate in terms of the letter of allotment. The question before the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court was as to whether the same constitute interest within the meaning of section 2(28A) of the…

West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result ITA No.213/Kol/2012 of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 113/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 194ASection 40

…no obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source u/s 194A of the Act. The ld. Counsel placed reliance on the following two decisions :- i) CIT vs H.P.Housing Board (2012) 340 ITR 388 (HP) ii) Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Dfr. N.K.Gupta 258 ITR 337. In the case of H.P. Housing Board there was a delay in construction of house and therefore H.P.Housing Board paid interest to the allottees on the agreed rate in terms of the letter of allotment. The question before the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court was as to whether the same constitute interest within the meaning of section 2(28A) of the…