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 367,181 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

Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 1151/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

…the entire provisioned amount for each year under consideration u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 15. We also draw our support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P.Ltd.,Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) has held that in the event the payee has paid taxes, the deductor cannot Page 28 ITA Nos. 1644/Bang/2014, 1151/Bang/2015 & 2035/Bang/2016 be held liable for not deducting the TDS. As the Ld.AO has not verified this aspect and considering the fact that assessee has paid taxes by suo moto disallowance of the entire provisioned amount, it is d…

Dell India P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS), Ltu, Bangalore

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 1644/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

…the entire provisioned amount for each year under consideration u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 15. We also draw our support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P.Ltd.,Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) has held that in the event the payee has paid taxes, the deductor cannot Page 28 ITA Nos. 1644/Bang/2014, 1151/Bang/2015 & 2035/Bang/2016 be held liable for not deducting the TDS. As the Ld.AO has not verified this aspect and considering the fact that assessee has paid taxes by suo moto disallowance of the entire provisioned amount, it is d…

Commnr.Income Tax vs. Piyush Ku Gupta

ITA/123/2005HC Orissa02 Feb 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Priavte Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS) /OSD Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 1690/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1689 & 1690/Bang/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s. Robert Bosch Engineering and Business The Income Tax Officer Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (TDS)/(OSD) LTU, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Bangalore. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AAACR7108R APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee by Advocate Revenue by : Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 04-01-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31-01-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is…

Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS) /OSD, Bangalore

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

ITA 1689/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1689 & 1690/Bang/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s. Robert Bosch Engineering and Business The Income Tax Officer Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (TDS)/(OSD) LTU, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Bangalore. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AAACR7108R APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee by Advocate Revenue by : Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 04-01-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31-01-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is…

Vishal Jalan, Chinsuraha vs. ITO, WD. 45(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 464/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vishal Jalan…………......................................................................................………………….............Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh Associates, Advocates Seben Brothers’ Lodge P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly Pin- 712 105 West Bengal [Pan : Acfpj 9905 L] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-45(4), Kolkata……...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 194HSection 250Section 40

…assessee by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of for the assessee by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. v. CIT ( Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. v. CIT (293 ITR 226), is that the concerned parties that the concerned parties having offered the commission income having offered the commission income received by them from the assessee in their from the assessee in their respective returns of income and also respective returns of income and also paid tax thereon, the assessee again cannot be paid tax thereon, the…

Kreative Hosts Atria Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 551/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Kreative Hosts Atria Pvt Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., C/O. P. Murali & Co., C,A, Hyderabad 6-3-655/2/3, Simajiguda, Hyderabad Pan/Gir No.Aadck 2362 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao , Ar Revenue By : Shri T.Sunil Goutham (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Hyderabad Dated 28.5.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 .

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao , ARFor Respondent: Shri T.Sunil Goutham (DR)
Section 249(3)Section 40Section 5

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD ‘A’ BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE S/SHRI A .MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Kreative Hosts Atria Pvt Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Ltd., C/O. P. Murali & Co., C,A, Hyderabad 6-3-655/2/3, Simajiguda, Hyderabad PAN/GIR No.AADCK 2362 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao , AR Revenue by : Shri T.Sunil Goutham (DR) Date of Hearing : 11/10/ 2021 Date of Pronouncement : 06/01/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Hyder…

Vodafone Idea Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, all Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6295/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2009-10
Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

…al and arbitrary. 2.3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the binding nature of the CBDT circular, the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. (293 ITR 226) and the judgment of the jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal (reported in 135 TTJ 385) in the Appellant's own case. 2.4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the specific request of the Appellant to bring on record evidence that is critical and vital to the appreciation of the issue as wel…

Dy. CIT (TDS)-2 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6242/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2009-10
Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

…al and arbitrary. 2.3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the binding nature of the CBDT circular, the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. (293 ITR 226) and the judgment of the jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal (reported in 135 TTJ 385) in the Appellant's own case. 2.4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the specific request of the Appellant to bring on record evidence that is critical and vital to the appreciation of the issue as wel…

Connaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-73(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 993/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr.D.R
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…ssee company had paid taxes on the said amount, therefore, as per the “proviso” to Section 201(1) of the Act and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. 6 I.T.As. No.993 & 1984/DEL/2020 vs. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) it could not be treated as an assessee-in-default, thus, directed the AO to verify the factual position, and in case if the deductees were found to have paid the tax on CAM charges by filing their respective returns of income u/s.139 of the Act, then, the assessee company be not treated as an assessee-in-default. 5. The assessee being aggrie…

Connaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-73(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1984/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr.D.R
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…ssee company had paid taxes on the said amount, therefore, as per the “proviso” to Section 201(1) of the Act and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. 6 I.T.As. No.993 & 1984/DEL/2020 vs. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) it could not be treated as an assessee-in-default, thus, directed the AO to verify the factual position, and in case if the deductees were found to have paid the tax on CAM charges by filing their respective returns of income u/s.139 of the Act, then, the assessee company be not treated as an assessee-in-default. 5. The assessee being aggrie…

Radha Govind Buildestate P. Ltd, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 474/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

…e the amounts were paid, they need not be brought u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He, therefore, deleted the addition made by the AO”. The Ld. AR also places reliance on the judgement of hon’ble Apex Court in case of M/s. Hindustan Cocoola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 293 ITR 226 and Eli Lilly (India) Pvt. Ltd. 312 ITR 225. Thus in accordance with above settled position of law no disallowance could be made in the hands of assessee u/s 40(a)(ia) so the disallowance of Rs. 1,23,00,000/- made by Ld. A.O. by invoking provisions of section (40(a)(ia) and confirmed by CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. 57. On the other hand, the ld…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Radaha Govind Build Estate Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 469/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

…e the amounts were paid, they need not be brought u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He, therefore, deleted the addition made by the AO”. The Ld. AR also places reliance on the judgement of hon’ble Apex Court in case of M/s. Hindustan Cocoola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 293 ITR 226 and Eli Lilly (India) Pvt. Ltd. 312 ITR 225. Thus in accordance with above settled position of law no disallowance could be made in the hands of assessee u/s 40(a)(ia) so the disallowance of Rs. 1,23,00,000/- made by Ld. A.O. by invoking provisions of section (40(a)(ia) and confirmed by CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. 57. On the other hand, the ld…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Radaha Govind Build Estate Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 468/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

…e the amounts were paid, they need not be brought u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He, therefore, deleted the addition made by the AO”. The Ld. AR also places reliance on the judgement of hon’ble Apex Court in case of M/s. Hindustan Cocoola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 293 ITR 226 and Eli Lilly (India) Pvt. Ltd. 312 ITR 225. Thus in accordance with above settled position of law no disallowance could be made in the hands of assessee u/s 40(a)(ia) so the disallowance of Rs. 1,23,00,000/- made by Ld. A.O. by invoking provisions of section (40(a)(ia) and confirmed by CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. 57. On the other hand, the ld…

Mgm Minerals Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT(TDS)-1, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 248/CTK/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2013-14 M.G.M. Minerals Ltd., 2 M.G.M. Minerals Ltd., 2-A, Forest Vs. Acit (Tds- -1), Park, Bhubaneswar. Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aadcm 2818 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.Sabat B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.Sabat, Ars Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Addl. Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/10 10/2021 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Dated 17.2.2015 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.SabatFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Addl
Section 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/ S/SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 M.G.M. Minerals Ltd., 2 M.G.M. Minerals Ltd., 2-A, Forest Vs. ACIT (TDS- -1), Park, Bhubaneswar. Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. No.AADCM 2818 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.Sabat B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.Sabat…

M/S. M.G.Mohanty, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT(TDS)-1, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 247/CTK/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2013-14 M.G.Mohanty., 2 ., 2-A, Forest Park, Vs. Acit (Tds- -1), Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aaffm 2127 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.Sabat B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.Sabat, Ars Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Addl. Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/10 10/2021 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Dated 17.2.2015 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.SabatFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Addl
Section 206(1)(C)Section 206(7)Section 206CSection 206C(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/ S/SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 M.G.Mohanty., 2 ., 2-A, Forest Park, Vs. ACIT (TDS- -1), Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. No.AAFFM 2127 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.Sabat B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.Sabat, ARs Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohan…

JCIT(OSD)(TDS), Circle, Panchkula vs. M/S Liberty Shoes Ltd., Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 268/CHANDI/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 268/Chd/2020 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 Joint Commissioner Of Income M/S Liberty Shoes Ltd., बनाम 13Th Mile Stone, Tax (Osd) (Tds) Circle Aaykar Bhawan, Sector 2 Liberty Puram, G.T. Road, Panchkula Kutail, Karnal Tan No: Rtkl00664G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Satish Kumar Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT
Section 133A(1)Section 144ASection 194CSection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “A”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI R.L NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 268/CHD/2020 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 Joint Commissioner of Income M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd., बनाम 13th Mile Stone, Tax (OSD) (TDS) Circle Aaykar Bhawan, Sector 2 Liberty Puram, G.T. Road, Panchkula Kutail, Karnal TAN NO: RTKL00664G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing through video Conferencing राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT "नधा" रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Satish Kumar Goel, Advocate सुनवाई क"…

Prahari Agency Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 5 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 1701/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1701/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Prahari Agency Private Limited, Income Tax Officer, 24 Landons Road, V. Croporate Ward 5(2), Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai -600 010. [Pan: Aabcp 7862K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Arjunraj, Ca For S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.10.2021

For Appellant: Shri. Arjunraj, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 194CSection 36Section 40

…sion Corporation of AP Ltd. v CIT [1999] 239 ITR 587. :-3-: ITA. No: 1701/Chny/2018 G. The appellant for the purpose of not being treated as 6assesssee in default9 relies on decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd. v CIT 293 ITR 226. H. DISALLOWANCE u/s 36 (1) (ib) -The Assessing Officer failed to examine the Bank Statements of the appellant for the Month of April 2013 to confirm that the payment of Keyman Insurance of Rs.70,682/- had indeed been paid in Mare 2013 an Bank Account in the month of April 2013. I. The appellant craves leave to adduce additional grounds of appeal…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore Turf Club Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2248/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…Hence, as per the provisions of Section 201 of the Act, the assessee cannot be treated as an 'assessee in default'. Reliance was placed on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 163 Taxman 355/293 ITR 226 (SC). Before us, it was explained that complete details of the horse owners were filed before the Assessing Officer showing that taxes have been duly paid by them. Thus, as the horse owners who have earned the stake money are liable for payment of taxes, any additional demand on the assessee would amount to double recovery, which is impermissible…

Bangalore Turf Club Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1849/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…Hence, as per the provisions of Section 201 of the Act, the assessee cannot be treated as an 'assessee in default'. Reliance was placed on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 163 Taxman 355/293 ITR 226 (SC). Before us, it was explained that complete details of the horse owners were filed before the Assessing Officer showing that taxes have been duly paid by them. Thus, as the horse owners who have earned the stake money are liable for payment of taxes, any additional demand on the assessee would amount to double recovery, which is impermissible…