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

Issues it is cited on

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

DCIT CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Maheshvilla Developers and Farms Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 2146/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2146/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit. Cent. Cir-7(3) बिधम/ Maheshvilla Developers & Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 412, 71-G, Vardhman Road, Mumbai-400020. Chamber C.P. Road Harniman Circle Fort Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm3615B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri S. K. Mitra Assessee By: Ms. Neelam Bohra सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 10.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -49, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Ms. Neelam BohraFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Mitra
Section 143(2)Section 40

…be set aside. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the claim of the interest of the assessee has duly been covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT-293 ITR 226, therefore, the claim of the assessee has rightly been allowed. It is also argued that the claim of the sister concern of the assessee in case of M/s. Vardha Vinayak Township Development Pvt. Ltd. has also been allowed by the Hon’ble ITAT. In view of the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perusing the record, we notice…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Apeejay Tea Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1736/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1736/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle – 4(1) Kolkata...................................………………………….............................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. M/S. Apeejay Tea Ltd.....................…………………………..................................................Respondent ‘Apeejay House’, Block-A, 15, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016. [Pan: Aaeca 1925 D] Appearances By: Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 20, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 10, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtap(Kz) This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 16, Kolkata Dated 30.06.2016. 2. In Ground No. 1, The Revenue Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 31,64,411/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Balance Additional Depreciation.

Section 32Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH (A), KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A. No. 1736/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT, Circle – 4(1) Kolkata...................................………………………….............................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. M/s. Apeejay Tea Ltd.....................…………………………..................................................Respondent ‘Apeejay House’, Block-A, 15, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016. [PAN: AAECA 1925 D] Appearances by: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR appearing on behalf of the Re…

Ifc Universal Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 4661/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4661/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) बनधम/ M/S. Ifc Universal Ito 8(2)(1) Room No. 477, Aayakar Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 11, Adeshwar Arcade, Mumbai-400020. Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci8524P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (Dr) Assessee By: Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.03.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Lax (Appeals) Erred In Not Deleting Disallowance Of Expenses On Payments Of Freight Made To Jet Airways (India)Ltd Rs.7.15.765/- & To Kingfisher Airlines Ltd Rs.50,38,699/- U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Appreciating The Submissions Tiled By The Appellant, That The Introduction To Proviso To Section 201(I)Is Explanatory/Clarificatory & Therefore Should Apply Retrospectively & Therefore Payments Of Freight Without Tds

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)For Respondent: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 201Section 40

…that it had not deducted tax at source as per the provisions of chapter XVII of the Act, that later on it withdrew the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) in the revised return, that it relied upon the case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Ltd.(293 ITR 226), that the AO and the FAA held that facts of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Ltd. were distinguishable, that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) were amended by the Finance act, 2012, that second proviso had been brought in statute book with effect from 01/04/2013, that the act of the assessee of deleting the addition under section 40(a)(ia…