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.

How many judgments cite Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT?

576 judgments on BharatTax cite Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (293 ITR 226), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 201(1A), Section 194C, Section 201(1), Section 40(a)(ia), Section 143(3), Section 201.

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (293 ITR 226)

Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Sikar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 484/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 234A

…e of making deduction of tax at source and depositing with the Govt., stands fulfilled. It is under this background, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola 36 Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat vs DCIT Circle –Sikar Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT 293 ITR 226 followed in Children’s Education Society v/s DCIT & Anr 34 DTR 145(Ker)- has held that no penalty u/s 271C or interest u/s 201 can be charged in such cases. The principle so propounded equally and squarely applies on the facts of the present case also. Hence the entire disallowance be deleted in full. Also refer CIT v/s Intel Tech India(P) Ltd 55…

M/S. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society, Lucknow vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 16/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Sahara Credit Cooperative V. Jcit (Tds) Society Lucknow Kapoorthala Complex Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Lknso9775D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri J.J. Mehrotra, C.A. & Shri Debashish Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 12 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 01 2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri J.J. Mehrotra, C.A. and ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271CSection 273B

…f the tax as required by or under the provisions of Chapter XVII-B, or pay the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under (i) sub-section (2) of section 115- O, or (ii) the second proviso to section 194B. 10. In ‘Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. vs. CIT’, 293 ITR 226 (SC) and in ‘Jagran Prakashan Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS)’, 345 ITR 228 (Alld) and also various orders of the Tribunal, it has been held that where TDS was paid by the assessee or the required tax was paid by the deductee, the assessee should not be held to be in default. Only interest on delayed payment under section 201(1A)…

Smt. Ritu Singh, Bhopal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 5 (1), Bhopal

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

ITA 59/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Ritu Singh Dcit B-110, Habibganj Alkapuri Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Bmips8854D

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 40

…[ITA No.59/Ind/2018] [Smt. Ritu Singh, Bhopal] आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE “SMC” BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Ritu Singh DCIT B-110, Habibganj Alkapuri Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.BMIPS8854D Appellant by Shri Hitesh Chimnani, A.R. Respondent by Shri Puneet Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 11.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 26.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is against order of the CIT(A)-2, Indore dated 28.11.2017 pertaining to the…

M/S Sha Thanmal Sukharajji & Co, Ranebennur vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Range, Hubbali

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1726/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru

Section 115Section 133ASection 194Section 194BSection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271CSection 271C(2)

…have filed their returns of income showing the amounts received from the Assessee and hence the Assessee was given the benefit of TDS deducted to that extent as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coco Cola Beverage Pvt.Ltd. 293 ITR 226(SC). The plea of ITA Nos. 1724 to 1726/Bang/2018 Page 13 of 14 the Assessee that failure to deduct tax at source was unintentional and was under the bonafide belief that tax is not deductible on payments in question has to be accepted in the given facts and circumstances of the case. It is also not disputed that the default was noticed only at t…

M/S Sha Thanmal Sukharajji & Co, Ranebennuru vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Range, Hubli

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1725/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru

Section 115Section 133ASection 194Section 194BSection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271CSection 271C(2)

…have filed their returns of income showing the amounts received from the Assessee and hence the Assessee was given the benefit of TDS deducted to that extent as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coco Cola Beverage Pvt.Ltd. 293 ITR 226(SC). The plea of ITA Nos. 1724 to 1726/Bang/2018 Page 13 of 14 the Assessee that failure to deduct tax at source was unintentional and was under the bonafide belief that tax is not deductible on payments in question has to be accepted in the given facts and circumstances of the case. It is also not disputed that the default was noticed only at t…

M/S Sha Thanmal Sukharajji & Co, Ranebennuru vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Range, Ranebennuru

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1724/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru

Section 115Section 133ASection 194Section 194BSection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271CSection 271C(2)

…have filed their returns of income showing the amounts received from the Assessee and hence the Assessee was given the benefit of TDS deducted to that extent as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coco Cola Beverage Pvt.Ltd. 293 ITR 226(SC). The plea of ITA Nos. 1724 to 1726/Bang/2018 Page 13 of 14 the Assessee that failure to deduct tax at source was unintentional and was under the bonafide belief that tax is not deductible on payments in question has to be accepted in the given facts and circumstances of the case. It is also not disputed that the default was noticed only at t…

T.E.Abinesh, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Ward 8(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2561/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2560 & 2561/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, JCITFor Respondent: 02.12.2019

Section 194ASection 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी एस. जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2560 & 2561/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri T.E. Abinesh The Assistant Commissioner of Abi & Abi Group of Companies, Income Tax, Institution and Media, Vs. Non Corporate Ward-8(1), Unit No:382, 10th Floor, Chennai – 600 034 Seethakkathi Business Centre, Anna Salai, Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006. [PAN: BBEPA 7824…

T.E.Abinesh, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Ward 8(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2560/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2560 & 2561/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, JCITFor Respondent: 02.12.2019

Section 194ASection 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी एस. जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2560 & 2561/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri T.E. Abinesh The Assistant Commissioner of Abi & Abi Group of Companies, Income Tax, Institution and Media, Vs. Non Corporate Ward-8(1), Unit No:382, 10th Floor, Chennai – 600 034 Seethakkathi Business Centre, Anna Salai, Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006. [PAN: BBEPA 7824…

M/S.Fashion Impex, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Offier-21(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2009-10 is allowed and for AYs 2010-

ITA 6145/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Fashion Impex, Income Tax Officer, 205, Ashish Industries Estate, Vs. 21(1)(5), Piramal Gokhale Road (S), Dadar (West) Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400025. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aabff3486G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Girish Dave & Sashank Dundu, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Bhera Ram, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Dave & Sashank Dundu, ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Bhera Ram, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Fashion Impex, Income Tax Officer, 205, Ashish Industries Estate, Vs. 21(1)(5), Piramal Gokhale Road (S), Dadar (West) Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400025. Mumbai-400012. PAN No. AABFF3486G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Girish Dave & Sashank Dundu, ARs Revenue by : Mr. Bhera Ram, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 19/11/2019 Date of pronouncement: 29/11/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M.…

M/S.Fashion Impex, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Offier-21(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2009-10 is allowed and for AYs 2010-

ITA 6144/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Fashion Impex, Income Tax Officer, 205, Ashish Industries Estate, Vs. 21(1)(5), Piramal Gokhale Road (S), Dadar (West) Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400025. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aabff3486G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Girish Dave & Sashank Dundu, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Bhera Ram, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Dave & Sashank Dundu, ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Bhera Ram, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Fashion Impex, Income Tax Officer, 205, Ashish Industries Estate, Vs. 21(1)(5), Piramal Gokhale Road (S), Dadar (West) Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400025. Mumbai-400012. PAN No. AABFF3486G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Girish Dave & Sashank Dundu, ARs Revenue by : Mr. Bhera Ram, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 19/11/2019 Date of pronouncement: 29/11/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M.…

Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT(International Taxation), Noida

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4906/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR

Section 201

…been assessed in respect of its income chargeable in India including income from the fee received from the appellant; and had discharged its Indian tax liability by direct payment. Therefore, following Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 2) [2007]293 ITR 226 (S.C.), CIT v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2009] 312 ITR 225 (S.C.) and the CBDT Circular No. 275/201/95-IT(B) dated 29.1.1997, the same tax could not be doubly collected the appellant as well. 2.1 That, therefore, the AO should be directed to delete the demand on the appellant under s. 201(1) of the Act. LIABILITY OF INTEREST UNDER S. 20…

S.K. Electronics, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 1511/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Patwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271Section 40Section 68

…sallowance can be made in view of the 2nd proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) read with 1st proviso to Section 201. In support, he strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, (2007), 293 ITR 226 (SC); CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd., (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del.). 8 I.T.A. No.1511/DEL/2019 11. On the other hand, ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that if assessee is claiming benefit under 2nd proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), then onus was upon the assessee. Alternatively, he s…

DCIT (TDS) 2(2), Mumbai vs. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3954/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bledy. Cit - (Tds) – 2(2) V. Standard Chartered Bank-India Crescenzo, 7Th Floor 7Th Floor Kamladevi Mittal Auyurvedic Hospital C-38/39, G-Block Charni Road (W), Mumbai – 400 002 Behind Mca Club Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Department By : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…n assessee’s own case for the A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 in ITA.Nos. 3339 & 3340/MUM/2014 and ITA.No. 6052/MUM/2014 dated 08.11.2017 wherein the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., [293 ITR 226] held that the assessee was not in-default u/s. 201(1) of the Act. Copy of the order is placed on record. He further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) followed the order of the Tribunal and deleted the interest levied u/s. 201(1A) of the Act by the Assessing 3 Standard Chartered Bank-India Officer. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that facts are…

Kavya Travel Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 4 (4), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for ay: 2013-14

ITA 1791/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anitha, JCITFor Respondent: 17.09.2019

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…all come into play for rescue of the assessee, which was held to be retrospective by Hon’ble Delhi High Court w.e.f. 01.04.2005. It was submitted that in light of decision in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited v. CIT reported in (2007) 293 ITR 226(SC) , the revenue can at best recover interest as per ratio of ITA Nos.1790 & 1791/Chny/2018 :- 7 -: decision in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola(supra) and it was prayed that issue may accordingly be restored back for readjudication. 5.2 The Ld.DR objected to the grant of one more opportunity to the assessee and submitted that the assessee has…

Kavya Travel Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 4 (4), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for ay: 2013-14

ITA 1790/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anitha, JCITFor Respondent: 17.09.2019

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…all come into play for rescue of the assessee, which was held to be retrospective by Hon’ble Delhi High Court w.e.f. 01.04.2005. It was submitted that in light of decision in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited v. CIT reported in (2007) 293 ITR 226(SC) , the revenue can at best recover interest as per ratio of ITA Nos.1790 & 1791/Chny/2018 :- 7 -: decision in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola(supra) and it was prayed that issue may accordingly be restored back for readjudication. 5.2 The Ld.DR objected to the grant of one more opportunity to the assessee and submitted that the assessee has…

The DCIT, Circle-3(1) (TDS), Vijayawada vs. M/S Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Tirupathi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 452/VIZ/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.452-454/Viz/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Southern Power Circle-3(1) (Tds) Distribution Company Of Vijayawada A.P.Limited Behind Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam Kesavavayana Gunta Tirupati [Pan : Hydso8188F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1217/H/2010,517/Viz/2019 &518/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively) M/S Southern Power Distribution Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Company Of A.P.Limited Income Tax Behind Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam Circle-3(1) (Tds) Kesavavayana Gunta Vijayawada Tirupati [Pan : Hydso8188F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri C.P.Rama Swami, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019

For Appellant: Shri C.P.Rama Swami, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 194ISection 201(1)

…ies Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 333 (Bom) (paras 21, 22) Commissioner of Customs v. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. [2002J 253 ITR 274 (SC) (para 25) Continental Construction Ltd. v. CIT [1%2J 195 ITR 81 (SC) (para 14) Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. v. CIT [2007J 293 ITR 226 (SC) (para 18) ITO v. Dr. Willmar Schwabe India P. Ltd. [2005] 3 SOT 71 (Delhi) (para) Medi Assist India TPA P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (TS) [2010] 324 ITR 356 (Karn) (paras 21, 22) Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. ITO [2006] 7 SOT 84 (Chennai) (para 14) Skycell Communications Ltd v. Deputy CIT [2001] 251 ITR 53 (Mad) (paras 13, 14, 23, 24,25) Therefore r…

Canara Bank, Trivandrum vs. DCIT (TDS), Trivandrum

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

ITA 474/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 194ASection 201

…t committed in short deduction of tax. 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) agreed with the assessee that the assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindusthan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (293 ITR 226) I.T.A. No. 474/Coch/2018 wherein it was held that where no tax has been deducted or there is short fall in tax deducted but the deductee had paid the tax on income earned then no tax shall be recovered from the deductor. The CIT(A) observed that what is shown in the return filed by the said Corporation is the interest of Rs.22,96,05,562/- re…

M/S Jeevan Telecasting Corpn Ltd, Cochin vs. ACIT, Cochin

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 615/COCH/2010[09-Aug]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

…TDS, the learned Senior Counsel also has a case that even before the present amendment bringing in the proviso to section 201(1) there was a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which was referred to by the Honourable Supreme Court in (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) [Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P.Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax]. The relevant paragraph is quoted hereunder:- "Be that as it may, circular No. 275/ 201/95-IT(B) dated January 29, 1997, issued by the central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular dec1ares "no demand visualized…

M/S Jeevan Telecasting Corpn Ltd, Cochin vs. ACIT, Cochin

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 614/COCH/2010[007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

…TDS, the learned Senior Counsel also has a case that even before the present amendment bringing in the proviso to section 201(1) there was a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which was referred to by the Honourable Supreme Court in (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) [Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P.Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax]. The relevant paragraph is quoted hereunder:- "Be that as it may, circular No. 275/ 201/95-IT(B) dated January 29, 1997, issued by the central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular dec1ares "no demand visualized…

M/S Jeevan Telecasting Corpn Ltd, Cochin vs. ACIT, Cochin

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 613/COCH/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

…TDS, the learned Senior Counsel also has a case that even before the present amendment bringing in the proviso to section 201(1) there was a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which was referred to by the Honourable Supreme Court in (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) [Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P.Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax]. The relevant paragraph is quoted hereunder:- "Be that as it may, circular No. 275/ 201/95-IT(B) dated January 29, 1997, issued by the central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular dec1ares "no demand visualized…

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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

Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Sikar

M/S. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society, Lucknow vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Lucknow

Smt. Ritu Singh, Bhopal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 5 (1), Bhopal

M/S Sha Thanmal Sukharajji & Co, Ranebennur vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Range, Hubbali

M/S Sha Thanmal Sukharajji & Co, Ranebennuru vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Range, Hubli

M/S Sha Thanmal Sukharajji & Co, Ranebennuru vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Range, Ranebennuru

T.E.Abinesh, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Ward 8(1), Chennai

T.E.Abinesh, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Ward 8(1), Chennai

M/S.Fashion Impex, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Offier-21(1)(5), Mumbai

M/S.Fashion Impex, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Offier-21(1)(5), Mumbai

Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT(International Taxation), Noida

S.K. Electronics, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(4), New Delhi

DCIT (TDS) 2(2), Mumbai vs. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai

Kavya Travel Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 4 (4), Chennai

Kavya Travel Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 4 (4), Chennai

The DCIT, Circle-3(1) (TDS), Vijayawada vs. M/S Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Tirupathi

Canara Bank, Trivandrum vs. DCIT (TDS), Trivandrum

M/S Jeevan Telecasting Corpn Ltd, Cochin vs. ACIT, Cochin

M/S Jeevan Telecasting Corpn Ltd, Cochin vs. ACIT, Cochin

M/S Jeevan Telecasting Corpn Ltd, Cochin vs. ACIT, Cochin