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

M/S Diamond Cement vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 17/JAB/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…en as the tax deducted at source by the assessee on the relevant sums has been consistent with its’ past practice, not objected to by the Revenue, the assessee, relying on the decision by the Apex Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC) presses for the relief there-under, i.e., on the ground of double jeopardy inasmuch as tax on the relevant sums has been paid by the payee-deductees. And toward which he would advert to the copies of their tax returns as well as CA certificates and self-declarations qua the said sums, praying for their admission under rule 29 of the Income T…

M/S Diamond Cement vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 16/JAB/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…en as the tax deducted at source by the assessee on the relevant sums has been consistent with its’ past practice, not objected to by the Revenue, the assessee, relying on the decision by the Apex Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC) presses for the relief there-under, i.e., on the ground of double jeopardy inasmuch as tax on the relevant sums has been paid by the payee-deductees. And toward which he would advert to the copies of their tax returns as well as CA certificates and self-declarations qua the said sums, praying for their admission under rule 29 of the Income T…

M/S Diamond Cement vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 15/JAB/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…en as the tax deducted at source by the assessee on the relevant sums has been consistent with its’ past practice, not objected to by the Revenue, the assessee, relying on the decision by the Apex Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC) presses for the relief there-under, i.e., on the ground of double jeopardy inasmuch as tax on the relevant sums has been paid by the payee-deductees. And toward which he would advert to the copies of their tax returns as well as CA certificates and self-declarations qua the said sums, praying for their admission under rule 29 of the Income T…

M/S. Rakesh Kumar Jain, Champa (Cg) vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 27/BIL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Hon'Ble & Shrin.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR
Section 250(6)

…nd for the just decision of the case, we deem it appropriate to remand the issue in hand to the file of the AO for factual determination in view of dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC), as to whether payee (recipient) has paid the relevant taxes on the addition of Rs. 5,65,084/- on account of interest paid on finance charges, and to decide afresh the liability of the Assessee, if any. (M/s. Rakesh Kumar Jain) We may clarify that onus would be on the Assessee to substantiate its case either side, however, the AO would be at…

ACIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1394/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Acit-14(2)(1), M/S Maharashtra State Power Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Vs. Generation Company Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. G-9, Prakashgad, 2Nd Mumbai – 400 020 Floor, Anant Kanekar Marg, Station Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan No. Aaecm2935R (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, A.R Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman, D.R Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 145Section 14ASection 201(1)Section 40Section 40(1)(ia)

….82,65,57,704/- was offered in its return of income and the corresponding tax was duly paid on the same. Backed by the aforesaid facts, the CIT(A) relying on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ld. (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) observed that now when RGTIL i.e the deductee/payee had already paid the taxes on the amounts so received from the assessee company, therefore, the latter could not be held as an assessee in default qua the said amount. The CIT(A) while concluding as hereinabove had held as under: ITA No.1394/Mum/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 4 ACIT -14(2)(1) Vs. M/s M…

District Manager, Hafed, Kurukshetra vs. JCIT, TDS Range, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 District Manager, Vs Jcit, Hafed, Site No.01, Tds Range, Opp.Main Market, Sector-5, Karnal, Haryana. Kurukshetra, Haryana, Pan-Aaajh0022R. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Kulwant Rai Chhabra, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2021

Section 201(1)Section 271C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR.B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 District Manager, vs JCIT, HAFED, Site No.01, TDS Range, Opp.Main Market, Sector-5, Karnal, Haryana. Kurukshetra, Haryana, PAN-AAAJH0022R. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Sh. Kulwant Rai Chhabra, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 24.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement 31.08.2021 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 is directed against t…

Ajit Lalwani, Indore vs. Add.CIT(A), Indore

In the result, Assessee’s appeals in ITANo

ITA 195/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 206CSection 271C

…ince the details furnished in this forms prove about the due taxes having already been paid by the respective buyers the same will also be covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Cocacola Beverage Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 226. As the appellant has submitted Form 27C/27BA from the parties in question, the default computed by the AO is to be deleted. In view of above discussion, it is noticed that there is no violation of the provisions of section 206C of the Act in view of either the sale of specified products being that of non-excisable, non-scrap products, or the sam…

Ajit Lalwani, Indore vs. ACIT (TDS), Indore

In the result, Assessee’s appeals in ITANo

ITA 194/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 206CSection 271C

…ince the details furnished in this forms prove about the due taxes having already been paid by the respective buyers the same will also be covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Cocacola Beverage Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 226. As the appellant has submitted Form 27C/27BA from the parties in question, the default computed by the AO is to be deleted. In view of above discussion, it is noticed that there is no violation of the provisions of section 206C of the Act in view of either the sale of specified products being that of non-excisable, non-scrap products, or the sam…

ACIT, CC - 1 (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Studio Green, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 2427/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2427/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 & C.O. No. 99/Chny/2019 [In I.T.A. No. 2427/Chny/2019] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Studio Green, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Vs. Old No. 13, New No. 6, Ii Floor, Investigation Wing, Room No. 311, 6, Thanikachalam Road, No. 46, Mg Road, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Absfs6433Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri S. Bharath, Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri V. Vivek Rajan, C.A. : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 18.08.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 26.06.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Only Issue Involved In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Relating To Whether The Second Proviso Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Applies Retrospectively Or Only Prospective From The Date Of 2

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 40

…wing various decisions particularly, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ansal Landmark Township (P) Ltd. 377 ITR 365 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd. v. CIT 293 ITR 226 and also by following jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Quantum Knits P. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 2164/Mds/2014 and 287/Mds/2016, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to provide an opportunity to the assessee to furnish Form 26A from the recipients of the payments made without TDS and to delete the addition to the extent the recipients have off…

Mobile Trading & Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5895/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.5895/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mobile Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Acit Cpc-Tds बिाम/ 141, Mittal Tower, C-Wing Aaykar Bhavan, Sector-3, Nariman Point, Vaishali, Ghaziabad(Up) Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Pin 201010 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Tan Aaccm-1419-N / Mumm-27615-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Haria, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhale, Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/06/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-59, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Appeal No. Cit(A)59/It-133/Ito(Tds)- 1(3)(4)/2015-16 Dated 30/06/2017 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 1. Natural Justice: 1.1 In The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals - 59, Mumbai, ["The Cit(A)"] Be Held As Held As Bad & Illegal, As The Same Is Framed In Breach Of The Principals Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Haria, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 201

…component is consequential in nature. 1.5 The assessee assailed the interest demand listed at serial nos. 4(a) & 4(b) before Ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee, inter-alia, relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (293 ITR 226) for the submission that since the recipients paid full taxes by way of advance tax or self-assessment tax, department could not recover the same from deductor on same income by treating the assessee as assessee-in-default. The assessee submitted that the two payees paid advance taxes by March, 2008 and the tax was fully 4 M/s Mobile Trading & I…

Dgp Steel Star Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Asansol vs. DCIT, Circle - 6, Kolkata

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

ITA 2288/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 40

…dy offered to tax by NCC Limited, the assessee-company cannot be treated as assessee in default for non-deduction of tax at source from the said payment as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindusthan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Limited –vs.- CIT (293 ITR 226) and there is no question of making disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). As rightly contended by the ld. D.R., this claim made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee specifically for the first time before the Tribunal, however, requires verification and the matter may, therefore, be sent back to the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of this…

Special Land Acquistion Officer, Purba Medinipur vs. JCIT, R-59(TDS), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1256/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2021AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 194ASection 194LSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

…A). The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer AY 2011-12 stand of the assessee is that the recipients have paid tax on income embedded in these payments, and in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (293 ITR 226), the taxes cannot once again be recovered from the assessee. This contention is rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee is not able to prove that taxes on income embedded in these payments have been duly been paid by the recipients. The assessee’s request to the Assessing Officer to ‘use his statutory powers to corrobor…

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Purba Medinipur vs. ITO, WD-TDS, Haldia, Purba Medinipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1032/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2021AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 194ASection 194LSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

…A). The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer AY 2011-12 stand of the assessee is that the recipients have paid tax on income embedded in these payments, and in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (293 ITR 226), the taxes cannot once again be recovered from the assessee. This contention is rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee is not able to prove that taxes on income embedded in these payments have been duly been paid by the recipients. The assessee’s request to the Assessing Officer to ‘use his statutory powers to corrobor…

Essence Landmarks Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee allowed as indicated above

ITA 386/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Essence Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 12(2)(2) 119, Crystal Paradise Mall Room No. 146A, 1St Floor 1St Floor, Kfc Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off. Linking Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400050 Pan: Aabce5971E (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Essence Landmarks Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 12(2)(2) 119, Crystal Paradise Mall Room No. 146A, 1St Floor 1St Floor, Kfc Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off. Linking Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 050 Pan: Aacck8724A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt Janvi PamnaniFor Respondent: Shri Usha Gaikwad
Section 139Section 201(1)Section 40

…ee has already included the relevant income in his total income and paid tax thereon. In support thereof we rely upon CBDT Instruction No.275/201/95-IT(B) dated 29-1-1997 and decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. 293 ITR 226. The insertion of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature and it has retrospective effect from April 1, 2005, being the date from which sub-clause (ia) of section 40(a) was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004. The first proviso to section 201(1) has been inserted to benefit the assessee. It also states…

Essence Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee allowed as indicated above

ITA 385/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Essence Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 12(2)(2) 119, Crystal Paradise Mall Room No. 146A, 1St Floor 1St Floor, Kfc Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off. Linking Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400050 Pan: Aabce5971E (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Essence Landmarks Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 12(2)(2) 119, Crystal Paradise Mall Room No. 146A, 1St Floor 1St Floor, Kfc Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off. Linking Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 050 Pan: Aacck8724A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt Janvi PamnaniFor Respondent: Shri Usha Gaikwad
Section 139Section 201(1)Section 40

…ee has already included the relevant income in his total income and paid tax thereon. In support thereof we rely upon CBDT Instruction No.275/201/95-IT(B) dated 29-1-1997 and decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. 293 ITR 226. The insertion of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature and it has retrospective effect from April 1, 2005, being the date from which sub-clause (ia) of section 40(a) was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004. The first proviso to section 201(1) has been inserted to benefit the assessee. It also states…

M/S Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-18(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

…he learned AR submitted that the provisions of deduction of tax at source being tentative in nature, cannot subsist after the primary liability is discharged by the payee. The decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 may be referred in 58 M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Limited. support of this proposition. The Supreme Court after referring to the provisions of section 4, 190 and 191 held as under in CIT v Eli Lilly and Co. (India) P. Ltd. [2009] 312 ITR 225: “We are directing the AO to examine each case to ascertain whether the employee-assessee (recipient) h…

M/S Kundali Jewel (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO - 12(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3511/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3511/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Kundali Jewels (India) बिधम/ The Income Tax Officer 12 Pvt. Ltd. (3)(1) Vs. Room No.147 A, 1St Floor, 1/1705, Challenger Tower, Thakur Village, Kandivali Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. (E), Mumbai. Marg, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4337/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Income Tax Officer 12 बिधम/ M/S. Kundali Jewels (India) (3)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Room No.147 A, 1St Floor, 1/1705, Challenger Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Thakur Village, Kandivali Marg, Mumbai-400020. (E), Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Pnek10340B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Gurbinder Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm) The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.3511/Mum/2019 4337/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant C. ModiFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 40

…any disallowance under Sec.40(a)(ia). In our considered view, the aforesaid second proviso had been made available on the statute to give effect to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC). In the aforesaid judgment, it was observed by the Hon„ble Apex Court that where the payee has already paid the tax, the same would discharge the assessee from the obligation to deduct the same. At this stage, we may herein observe that though the second proviso had been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f 01.04.20…

Hella India Lighting Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 897/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 31Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.-897/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Halla India lighting Ltd DCIT K-61B, LGF, Kalkaji Vs. Circle-11 (1), New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN No. AAACJ 01013G Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Mustaq Ahmad, CA Revenue by MsRakhi Vimal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 10/2/2021 Pronouncement on 10/2/2021 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM Aggrieved by the order dated 6/11/2017 in appeal No. 644/16- 17 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-…

Arss Infrastructure Projects Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporation Circle- 1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 109/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri P.S.Panda/Kamal Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 40Section 43B

…of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. ELI Lilly and Co. (I) Pvt Ltd., 312 ITR 225 (SC) and also the decision in the case of Hindustan Coca P a g e 5 | 15 ITA No.1 09/CTK/202 0 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 12- 201 3 Cola Beverage Pvt ltd vs CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC). Ld A.R. in his written submissions submitted as under: “a) The second proviso to section 40(a)(ia), which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 effective from 1.4.2013, which reads as under: “Provided further that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B on any…

ITO-5(1), Indore vs. Shri R G Prajapati, Indore

Accordingly, ground no.1 is dismissed

ITA 723/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata.Y. 2011-12

Section 40

…e TDS had been deducted by the payee companies therefore, the deduction of tax on the same amount would be result of double taxation. This view is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. vs. CIT(2007) 293 ITR 226(Hon'ble Supreme Court). Before me the revenue could not controvert the finding recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) by bringing any contrary material on record. Therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) on ground no.1 is confirmed. Accordingly, ground no.1 is dismissed. 6. Ground No. 2 is with regard to addition of Rs.39,365/- on account of short term capital ga…