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

The DCIT, TDS Circle, Ahmedabad vs. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2216/AHD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 2216/Ahd/2013 2007-08 Dcit Nirma Limited Tds Circle, Nirma House, Ashram Ahmedabad Road, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan No. Aaacn5350K Revenue By : Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. Dr. Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. With Shri Himanshu Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2021 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2007-08 Which Is Arising From The Order Of The Cit(A)-Xxi, Ahmedabad Dated 13.06.2013, In The Proceedings Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2007-08 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. with Shri Himanshu Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 193Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

…iscount bonds in question, the issue of raising the demand of TDS in the hands of the assessee does not arise under Section 201(1) of the Act in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverage Private Ltd. reported in 293 ITR 226. 3.3 However, the Revenue carried the matter to the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in tax appeal No. 581 of 2017 on the following question of law: “Whether the appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the interest levied under Section 201(1A) of the Act” 3.4 The above question of law was admitted by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court…

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

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year 2012-

ITA 1848/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 194BSection 201fSection 234BSection 234CSection 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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Nitesh Estates Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 2005/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.1916 To 1918/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd. 8Th Floor, Nitesh Timesquare, #8, M.G. Road Dcit Vs. Bengaluru Circle-5(1)(1) Pan No : Aabcn9267C Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Range-12 Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. R. Premi, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 14A

…ould have retrospective effect form 1.4.2005 i.e the date from the main proviso 40(a)(ia) itself was inserted. Several High Courts have adopted the same lines. We may also note that the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd Vs. CIT (293 ITR 226)(SC) even in absence of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) had noticed that the payee had already paid the tax. Under such circumstances, the Court held that the payer / deductor can at best be asked to pay the interest on delay in depositing tax. 3. Under such circumstances, no question of law arises. Tax appeal is dismissed.” 8.3 In view of th…

M/S Nitesh Estates Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-5(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1918/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.1916 To 1918/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd. 8Th Floor, Nitesh Timesquare, #8, M.G. Road Dcit Vs. Bengaluru Circle-5(1)(1) Pan No : Aabcn9267C Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Range-12 Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. R. Premi, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 14A

…ould have retrospective effect form 1.4.2005 i.e the date from the main proviso 40(a)(ia) itself was inserted. Several High Courts have adopted the same lines. We may also note that the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd Vs. CIT (293 ITR 226)(SC) even in absence of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) had noticed that the payee had already paid the tax. Under such circumstances, the Court held that the payer / deductor can at best be asked to pay the interest on delay in depositing tax. 3. Under such circumstances, no question of law arises. Tax appeal is dismissed.” 8.3 In view of th…

M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-12, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1917/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.1916 To 1918/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd. 8Th Floor, Nitesh Timesquare, #8, M.G. Road Dcit Vs. Bengaluru Circle-5(1)(1) Pan No : Aabcn9267C Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Range-12 Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. R. Premi, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 14A

…ould have retrospective effect form 1.4.2005 i.e the date from the main proviso 40(a)(ia) itself was inserted. Several High Courts have adopted the same lines. We may also note that the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd Vs. CIT (293 ITR 226)(SC) even in absence of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) had noticed that the payee had already paid the tax. Under such circumstances, the Court held that the payer / deductor can at best be asked to pay the interest on delay in depositing tax. 3. Under such circumstances, no question of law arises. Tax appeal is dismissed.” 8.3 In view of th…

M/S Nitesh Estates Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1916/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.1916 To 1918/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd. 8Th Floor, Nitesh Timesquare, #8, M.G. Road Dcit Vs. Bengaluru Circle-5(1)(1) Pan No : Aabcn9267C Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Range-12 Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-5(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd., Bangalore Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. R. Premi, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 14A

…ould have retrospective effect form 1.4.2005 i.e the date from the main proviso 40(a)(ia) itself was inserted. Several High Courts have adopted the same lines. We may also note that the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd Vs. CIT (293 ITR 226)(SC) even in absence of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) had noticed that the payee had already paid the tax. Under such circumstances, the Court held that the payer / deductor can at best be asked to pay the interest on delay in depositing tax. 3. Under such circumstances, no question of law arises. Tax appeal is dismissed.” 8.3 In view of th…

Manju Choudhary, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-38, Kolkata

In the result, we cancel this order and allow the appeal of the assessee

ITA 893/KOL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194ASection 197Section 250Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Virtual Court) (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member) I.T.A. No. 893/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Manju Choudhary................................................................................................................Appellant [PAN: ACYPC 5082 A] Vs. DCIT, Circle-38, Kolkata.....………………..…..................................................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. Miraj D. Shah, A/R, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Supriyo Pal, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the…

M/S. Sri Balaji Prasanna Travels, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2078/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 234ASection 40

…luru Page 12 of 18 by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in its Circular No.275/201/95- IT(B) dated January 29, 1997. Reference in this behalf may also be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. v CIT, (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) where the same view was taken. 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 law is that if the deductee/payee has paid the tax, no recovery can be made from the person res…

ACIT, Vellore vs. Kramski Stamping and Molding India Pvt Ltd., Vellore

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

ITA 305/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.305/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Kramski Stamping & Income Tax, Molding India Pvt.Ltd Circle -1, Eraiyankadu Village, Anaicut Vellore. Block,Via Vrinchipuram, Vellore-632 104. Pan:Aadck3119L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 194CSection 40a

…once payee has paid tax on the amount received from the assessee, the requirement of disallowance u/s.40a(ia) of the Act does not arise. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coco cola Beverage Vs. CIT (293 ITR 226) and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township P.Ltd. vide its order dated 26.08.2015. 5. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee and also taken support from the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coco cola Beverage Vs. CIT(supra) and the decision…

Union Bank of India, Burdwan vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(2), Burdwan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 323/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 194ASection 197A(1)Section 201Section 201(1)

…the same income by treating the payer to be an assessee in default for short- fall in its amount of tax deducted at source. For this proposition of law, we rely on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindusthan Co-cola Breverages Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 293 ITR 226 (SC). In the light of the aforesaid discussion and taking into consideration the assertion given by the Ld. AR that both the customers against whom the AO has found that the assessee bank failed to deduct tax have duly reflected and shown the entire interest income in their respective return of income for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 and has remitted…

Union Bank of India, Burdwan vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(2), Burdwan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 322/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 194ASection 197A(1)Section 201Section 201(1)

…the same income by treating the payer to be an assessee in default for short- fall in its amount of tax deducted at source. For this proposition of law, we rely on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindusthan Co-cola Breverages Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 293 ITR 226 (SC). In the light of the aforesaid discussion and taking into consideration the assertion given by the Ld. AR that both the customers against whom the AO has found that the assessee bank failed to deduct tax have duly reflected and shown the entire interest income in their respective return of income for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 and has remitted…

Shri Nitin Sharma, Jabalpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 25/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 153DSection 263Section 7(1)

…urisdictional fact for proceeding u/s. 153A(1) r/w s. 153C. The finality of concluded proceedings cannot be lightly, if at all, disturbed (CIT v. Mtt. Ar. S. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar [1953] 23 ITR 180 (SC); Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC)), much less by raising contentious issues. The Courts are in fact, even in the relevant proceedings, slow to adopt a construction which deprives the parties of valuable rights inasmuch as when the right of appeal is not preferred within the time prescribed therefor, the other side acquires a valuable right (refer, inter alia, Mela Ram & Sons…

Nandlal L. Kodnaney, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 4924/MUM/2014[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2020AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: Shri Mayur A. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)

…of jurisdiction by the A.O, i.e., to frame an assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, gets frustrated/ foreclosed. Even as the law in the matter is trite, reference, with profit, may be made to the decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC), or for that matter by the Tribunal in Jaiprakash Power Venture Ltd. v. Asst.CIT (in ITA No. 88/Jab/2018, dated 12/12/2019), rendered with reference to a host of decisions. Here it may also be relevant to state that the comments of the AO on the various issues raised by the assessee before him, were sought by the first appellate authority fr…

Mehra Eyetech Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Add. CIT Circle6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1760/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Mehra Eyetech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Add.Cit, Circle 6 (3) 801/B, Lotus Corporation Park, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Graham Firth Steel Compound Mumbai – 400 020 Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 Pan/Gir No.Aaacu2684H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40

…disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act in terms of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 201(1) of the Act. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., reported in 293 ITR 226 to support its contentions in this regard. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had not discussed on this particular submission of the assessee at all and had not given any finding in its appellate order regarding the same. We find that this is a statutory benefit provided to the assessee which should not be taken away. However, even before us, we find th…

Sanjay Sawhney vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA/834/2019HC Delhi18 May 2020
Section 132Section 142(1)(ii)Section 153CSection 253(2)Section 260A

…Page 19 of 45 6. The learned counsel for the Assessee also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226/163 Taxman 355. In that case, the Tribunal had decided to reopen an appeal decided earlier and permitted the Assessee to urge a ground, which had not been considered by the Tribunal while deciding the appeal. The decision of the Tribunal to reopen the matter was not appealed against by the Revenue but, the Revenue successfully assailed the…

ACIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Devkripa Build Tech Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4323/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4323/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-3(1)(1) M/S. Devkrupa Build Tech Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor 3Rd Floor, Free Press Marg Aaykar Bhavan Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccd-5467-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Viral Doshi-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak-Ld.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 18/02/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 12/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Viral Doshi-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak-Ld.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

…original return of income but claimed it in the revised return of income, inter-alia, by relying upon CBDT Instruction No.275/201/95-IT(B) dated 29/01/1997 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT (293 ITR 226). Reliance was also placed on the benefit granted by second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) as inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01/04/2013 since the deductee had already included the relevant income in his total income and paid due taxes against the same. However, disregarding the same, the amount of Rs.432.80 Lacs was disallowed. 2.2 The Ld. CI…

M/S Vidal Health Insurance Tpa Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Bangalore

In the result appeals for A

ITA 1213/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. O.P. Meena

For Respondent: Shri. Ajay Rotti, C.A
Section 194JSection 201(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(iv)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1213 to1215/Bang/2018 AND Asst. Yrs: 2011 – 2012 to 2014 – 15 M/s. Vidal Health Insurance The Joint Commissioner of TPA Pvt. Ltd., Income – tax (OSD), 1st Floor, Tower – 2, BMTC Building, SJR I Park, EPIP Zone, 80 Feet Road, Vs. Whitefield, Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore – 560 095. PAN NO : AABCT9272F APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri. Ajay Rotti, C.A Appellant by Respondent by : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain CIT – DR : 20.01.2020 Date of Hearing Date of Pronou…

Sri. Singonahalli Chikkarevanna Gangadharaiah, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 785/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 194CSection 194C(3)Section 201Section 28Section 30Section 40

…position was accepted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in its Circular No.275/201/95-IT(B) dated January 29, 1997. Reference in this behalf may also be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. v CIT, (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) where the same view was taken. We 14 Sri.Singonahalli Chikkarevanna Gangadharaiah. 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 law is that if the deductee/payee has paid t…

Vijay Engineering Enterprises, Nagpur vs. ITO, WD, -8(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 101/NAG/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Feb 2020AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Milind Bhusari
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 271C

…pany. The ld. Counsel further relied on another judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Cadbury India Ltd., 11 taxmann.com 66 and the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 293 ITR 226 (SC) and submitted that in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd. (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the deductee, recipient of income, already paid taxes on amount received from deductor, department once again cannot recover tax from deductor on same income by treating deductor to be assessee-in-default for shortfall i…

Shakuntala Kushwaha, Allahabad vs. Income Tax Officer 2(3), Allahabad

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

ITA 130/ALLD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2009-10 Shakuntala Kushwaha V. Income Tax Officer 2(3) 105/54, Kareli Allahabad Allahabad Tan/Pan:Aodpk2329D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Shri S. K. Madhuk, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 02 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 02 2020

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

…ns and paid taxes. Therefore, question of any disallowance in the hands of the assessee does not arise. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. vs. CIT’, 293 ITR 226, submitted that once the transporters have deposited the tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the assessee may not be held to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax. ITA No.130/ALLD/2019 Page 4 of 5 8. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 9. Heard. Section 40(a)(ia)…