Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

293 ITR 226Supreme Court of India2007#108 most cited

What is Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The deductor cannot be treated as an assessee-in-default under Section 201(1) if the deductee has already paid the tax or offered the impugned receipts in their return of income. However, interest under Section 201(1A) for delayed deposit of tax can still be levied up to the date of filing of the return of income by the deductee.

576

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · 293 ITR 226 · Section 201(1) assessee in default · Section 201(1A) interest · tax paid by deductee · deductor not in default · TDS non-deduction liability · Section 194C · CBDT Circular S/2013

Sections most often in play

Section 201(1A)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 139Section 250

Issues it is cited on

interest under section 201(1a)section 271csection 201(1)assessee in defaultsection 201(1a)section 201section 194csection 20section 194section 19section 40(a)(ia)section 40(a)

Judgments citing Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Vng Automotive P. Ltd vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income

The appeals are disposed of as allowed

ITA-795/2004HC Delhi10 Apr 2026
For Appellant: Mr. Satyen Sethi & Mr. Arta Trana PandaFor Respondent: Mr Abhishek Maratha, SSC, Mr Apoorv
Section 148

…e addition was outside the scope of Section 153A of the Act, which though permitted, was not sustained on merits. In the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of ITAT, this Court referring to Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd v. Jt. CIT, (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC), held that: “7. We find considerable merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee. Concededly, the issue whether the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of Section 153A had been decided by the CIT (A) in favour of the Assessee and the decision on the said issue had attained finality as the revenue had not prefe…

M3M India Pvt.Ltd., Haryana vs. JCIT(OSD) TDS Circle, Gurgaon

ITA 5660/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

…y have been offering the impugned receipts in its profit & loss account so that its income could be assessed. If this be so then following several authorities, notably the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 163 Taxman 355 (SC)/[2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC), the assessee could not be held to be in default for non-deduction of tax at source. The Ld. AR also relied on the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 18 (SC)/[2010] 193 Taxman 234 (SC)/[2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). Lastly, the Ld. AR distinguished the case of Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2024] 15…

M3M India Pvt.Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT OSD TDS Circle, Gurgaon

ITA 5434/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

…y have been offering the impugned receipts in its profit & loss account so that its income could be assessed. If this be so then following several authorities, notably the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 163 Taxman 355 (SC)/[2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC), the assessee could not be held to be in default for non-deduction of tax at source. The Ld. AR also relied on the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 18 (SC)/[2010] 193 Taxman 234 (SC)/[2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). Lastly, the Ld. AR distinguished the case of Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2024] 15…

M3M India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT OSD TDS Circle, Gurgaon

ITA 5433/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

…y have been offering the impugned receipts in its profit & loss account so that its income could be assessed. If this be so then following several authorities, notably the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 163 Taxman 355 (SC)/[2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC), the assessee could not be held to be in default for non-deduction of tax at source. The Ld. AR also relied on the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 18 (SC)/[2010] 193 Taxman 234 (SC)/[2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). Lastly, the Ld. AR distinguished the case of Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2024] 15…

M3M India Pvt.Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT OSD TDS Circle, Gurgaon

ITA 5432/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

…y have been offering the impugned receipts in its profit & loss account so that its income could be assessed. If this be so then following several authorities, notably the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 163 Taxman 355 (SC)/[2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC), the assessee could not be held to be in default for non-deduction of tax at source. The Ld. AR also relied on the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 18 (SC)/[2010] 193 Taxman 234 (SC)/[2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). Lastly, the Ld. AR distinguished the case of Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2024] 15…

M3M India Pvt.Ltd., Gurgoan vs. JCIT OSD TDS Circle, Gurgaon

ITA 5431/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

…y have been offering the impugned receipts in its profit & loss account so that its income could be assessed. If this be so then following several authorities, notably the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 163 Taxman 355 (SC)/[2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC), the assessee could not be held to be in default for non-deduction of tax at source. The Ld. AR also relied on the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 18 (SC)/[2010] 193 Taxman 234 (SC)/[2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). Lastly, the Ld. AR distinguished the case of Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2024] 15…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Agilus Diagnostics Limited, Gurgaon

ITA 2836/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaldcit, Vs. M/S Agilus Diagnostics Circle-73(1), Room Ltd, No.413, 4Th Floor, Aayakar 306, Tower A, Unitech Bhawa, Laxmi Nagar, Cyber Park, Sector 39, Delhi Gurugram 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacs 2809 J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Devashish Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 246(2)Section 250

…ome tax return(s) Accordingly, the Respondent cannot be considered as an 'assessee in default' on the basis the Proviso attached to Section 201 of IT Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. v. CIT, reported at (2007) 8 SCC 463; ITO v. Alfred Allan Advertising, reported at [2006] 8 SOT 312 (Delhi); CIT (TDS) v. D.P. Vekaria, reported at [2014] 48 taxmann.com 249 (Guj). 6. Grounds raised have no substance. The appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04.02.2026 (Manish Agarwal) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 04.02.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS…

Orbit Resorts Limited, Chandigarh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle TDS, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 4880/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…in their ITR would lead to double taxation of the same amount both in the hands of the assessee and of the recipient. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt Ltd 293 ITR 226 [Supreme Court] for the proposition that when deductee has paid its tax, the deductor cannot be held to be in default. 7. The ld AR relied on the Circular no 715 dated 08.08.1995 issued by the CBDT which has clarified that such transactions attract TDS @ 2% under section 194C of the Act. The ld AR further relied on the following Page 3 of 8 […

The Haryana State Coop La Bour & Construction Fed L Td, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Karnal

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3244/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3242/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3243/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3244/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 The Haryana State Cooperative Labour Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds) & Construction Federation Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, Bay No. 23-24, Sector-2, Panchkula, Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana-134109 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaft8979R Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals For Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, Arise Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-8, Mumbai’S Din & Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024–25/1074658982(1), 1074659438(1) & 1074660137(1) Dated 18.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 201 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 194Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA No. 3242/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 ITA No. 3243/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 ITA No. 3244/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 The Haryana State Cooperative Labour Vs Income Tax Officer(TDS) & Construction Federation Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, Bay No. 23-24, Sector-2, Panchkula, Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana-134109 Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAFT8979R Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 08.01.2026 Date…

The Haryana State Coop La Bour & Construction Fed L Td, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Karnal

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3243/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3242/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3243/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3244/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 The Haryana State Cooperative Labour Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds) & Construction Federation Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, Bay No. 23-24, Sector-2, Panchkula, Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana-134109 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaft8979R Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals For Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, Arise Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-8, Mumbai’S Din & Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024–25/1074658982(1), 1074659438(1) & 1074660137(1) Dated 18.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 201 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 194Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA No. 3242/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 ITA No. 3243/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 ITA No. 3244/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 The Haryana State Cooperative Labour Vs Income Tax Officer(TDS) & Construction Federation Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, Bay No. 23-24, Sector-2, Panchkula, Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana-134109 Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAFT8979R Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 08.01.2026 Date…

The Haryana State Coop La Bour & Construction Fed L Td, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Karnal

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3242/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3242/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3243/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3244/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 The Haryana State Cooperative Labour Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds) & Construction Federation Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, Bay No. 23-24, Sector-2, Panchkula, Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana-134109 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaft8979R Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals For Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, Arise Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-8, Mumbai’S Din & Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024–25/1074658982(1), 1074659438(1) & 1074660137(1) Dated 18.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 201 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 194Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA No. 3242/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 ITA No. 3243/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 ITA No. 3244/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 The Haryana State Cooperative Labour Vs Income Tax Officer(TDS) & Construction Federation Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, Bay No. 23-24, Sector-2, Panchkula, Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana-134109 Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAFT8979R Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 08.01.2026 Date…

ITO(TDS)-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sashwat Energy Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the CO is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4279/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarincome Tax Officer (Tds) – V/S. Sashwat Energy Private 2(2)(1) बनाम Limited, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Building, 10Th Floor, Universal Cumballa Hill, Mumbai – Majestic Lokhande Marg, 400 026, Maharashtra Chembur West, Mumbai – 400 043, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Mums95080G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं./C.O. No.273/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4279/Mum/2025) (A.Y. 2021-22) Sashwat Energy Private V/S. Income Tax Officer (Tds) – Limited, बनाम 2(2)(1), 3Rd Floor, Mtnl 10Th Floor, Universal Majestic Building, Cumballa Hill, Lokhande Marg, Chembur Mumbai – 400 026, West, Mumbai – 400 043, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Mums95080G Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms Kinjal Bhuta,ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, (Sr. DR)
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194JSection 200Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40a

…considering that SPPL had already paid taxes on the income stated to have been received from the appellant. 7.2 Having regard to the parity of reasoning laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. v CIT, (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) and as declared by the CBDT in its circular dated 29.1.1997 , the aforesaid claim by the assessee is required to be evaluated. We find that the aforesaid settled position in law has also been legislatively recognized by insertion of a proviso in sub-section (1) of section 201 of the Act by the Finance Act, 2012. Thus, the settled position in…

Deputy Gothwal Constructions Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-74(1), Delhi

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2862/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2862/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Deputy Gothwal Constructions P. Ltd. Dcit, L-73, Mahipalpur Extension, Vs. Circle 74(1), South Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaccd9703C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 194CSection 196Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271

…income and would certainly have been offering the impugned receipts in its profit & loss account so that its income could be assessed. If this be so then following several authorities, notably the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. reported in 293 ITR 226 (SC), the assessee could not be held to be in default for non-deduction of tax at source. The Ld. AR also relied on the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. reported in 327 ITR 456 (SC). Lastly, the Ld. AR distinguished the case of Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. reported in 462 ITR 326 (Del). 3. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on t…

Safe and Sure Marine Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS), Ward 8(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for partly allowed for 7

ITA 4566/MUM/2025[2013–14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Respondent: None
Section 201Section 201(1)

…l, and accordingly, the demand under Section 201(I) should be deleted. 2 Supported by Law: SC in Hindustan should be deleted. 2 Supported by Law: SC in Hindustan should be deleted. 2 Supported by Law: SC in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Lid. v. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Lid. v. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Lid. v. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) - Deductor cannot be treated as assessee Deductor cannot be treated as assessee-in-default if tax default if tax paid by deductee. CB paid by deductee. CBDT Circular No. S/2013 dated DT Circular No. S/2013 dated 08.07.2013…

To Cum Pdo Panchkula, Panchkula vs. ITO TDS, Karna

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3338/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

…e not considered or examined by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon Page 3 of 6 ITA No. 3338/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16] TO CUM PDO Vs. ITO the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt Ltd 293 ITR 226 [Supreme Court] for the proposition that when deductee has paid its tax, the deductor cannot be held to be in default. 11. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 12. We have heard the ld DR, gone through the submissions of the assessee and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the order u/s 2…

DCIT(TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Novartis Healthcare Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2768/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Dcit(Tds)-2(3) Novartis Healthcare Private 320, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill, Limited Mtnl Te Bldg. Peddar Road Vs. 7Th Floor, Inspire Bkc, G Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg Block, Bkc Main Road Mumbai-400 026. Bandra, Mumbai-400 051. Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 121/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year : 2020-21)

For Respondent: S/Shri Anish Thacker (CA)
Section 133ASection 192Section 194Section 194HSection 201

…liance and handling. e. Pfizer Ltd. and Wockhardt Ltd.: The AO rightly noted these decisions are under challenge and factually distinguishable as they did not involve pervasive controls or retailer feedback loops. f. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (293 ITR 226 SC): The AO held this ruling inapplicable since NHPL failed to produce Form 26A as mandated under Rule 31ACB to show that tax has been paid by the recipients. g. CIT v. Qatar Airways (332 ITR 253): Distinction lies in the fact that NHPL collects and monitors data from stockists, unlike Qatar Airways which had no access to downstream agent inform…

Aesha Ashishbhai Shah Legal Heir and Wife of Late Ashish Sumatibhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1) Previously Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1480/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 250Section 40Section 68

…0(a)(ia) 10.1 In paragraph 5 of its earlier order, the Tribunal issued the following directions: “5. In the backdrop of long line of judicial precedents including judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coco Cola Beverage Ltd. reported at 293 ITR 226 (SC), we consider it expedient to set aside the disallowance and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Aesha Ashishbhai Shah LH of late Ashish S Shah Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2013-14 - 5– assessee shall be entitled to produce such evidences as may be considered necessary to defend its case for non-deduction of TDS. The Assessin…

Shreyans Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2455/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250Section 263Section 40

…a vide reply dated 13/12/2016 informed the Ld. AO that the TDS exemption certificate was not issued by his office. On this ground, the Ld. AO made the addition. The assessee also relied upon the decision of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC) in support of its argument, and also relied upon the proviso to section 201(1) of the Act to state that it is not an assessee default. Form No. 26A was also submitted with respect to the transactions in question before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has held in para 7.1 of his order that the decision of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverage Private L…

Shreyans Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2454/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250Section 263Section 40

…a vide reply dated 13/12/2016 informed the Ld. AO that the TDS exemption certificate was not issued by his office. On this ground, the Ld. AO made the addition. The assessee also relied upon the decision of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC) in support of its argument, and also relied upon the proviso to section 201(1) of the Act to state that it is not an assessee default. Form No. 26A was also submitted with respect to the transactions in question before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has held in para 7.1 of his order that the decision of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverage Private L…

Pravin Prakash Magar, Maharashtra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals- Ward 4, Panvel, Maharashtra

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

ITA 5118/MUM/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Pravin Prakash Magar Cit(Appeals) Ward 4, Panvel B 106 Pratiksha Chs Plot No. 55, Panvel, Maharashtra 410206 Vs. Sec 15, Koper Khairne, Kopar Khairne S.O., Mumbai 400709 Pan No. Bpapm1266A Appellant Respondent : Shri.Pravin Magar (Assessee In Person) Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. Dr (Virtually Appear) Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 Date Of : 03/11/2025 Pronouncement Order Per Om Prakash Kant, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 16.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] For Ay 2024-25 In Relation To Order U/S. 201 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short The ‘Act’] Passed By The Ao For Short Deduction Of Tax At Source On Payment Made For Purchase Of Property From Non-Resident Indian. The Relevant Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Respondent: Shri.Pravin Magar (
Section 195Section 197Section 200ASection 201Section 201(1)

…scharged their capital gains tax liability in full, the assessee ought not to be treated as an assessee-in-default, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. 4 Pravin Prakash Magar Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC). The Ld. CIT(A), however, observed that as per the proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act, read with Rule 31ACB of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, an assessee seeking relief on this ground is required to furnish a certificate in Form No. 26A duly verified by an accountant. Since the assessee had not furnished such a certificate, the Ld. CIT(A) dis…