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

Mrs.Tarulata Shah, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Range-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6464/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

For Appellant: Mr. RaveevWaglay, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271C

…taxes in their individual capacity. In this respect a statement of interest paid, showing the name of the persons, their address, amount and their PAN was filed. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC), Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd. v. ITO (2005) 3 SOT 627 (Bang-Trib). It is further stated that the first proviso to section 201(1) as also Rule 31ACB were inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 and were not applicable for the assessment year prior to that date. As such, the question of filing Form 26A in terms of Rule 31ACB did n…

Mrs. Sonal Shah, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Range-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6462/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

For Appellant: Mr. RaveevWaglay, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271C

…taxes in their individual capacity. In this respect a statement of interest paid, showing the name of the persons, their address, amount and their PAN was filed. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC), Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd. v. ITO (2005) 3 SOT 627 (Bang-Trib). It is further stated that the first proviso to section 201(1) as also Rule 31ACB were inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 and were not applicable for the assessment year prior to that date. As such, the question of filing Form 26A in terms of Rule 31ACB did n…

ACIT 2 (1), Ujjain vs. M/S Phalodi Construction Company Nersigarh, Nersigarh

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 657/IND/2017[07-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit-2(1) M/S. Phaloudi Construction बनाम/ Company, Nersingarh Ujjain Vs. Rajgarh (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffp9523Q Revenue By Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06. 02.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal By Revenue Pertaining To A.Y. 2007-08 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)- Ujjain, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 04.07.2017 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On M/S. Phaloudi Construction Co. Itano.657/Ind/2017 31.01.2013 By Dcit, 2(1), Ujjain. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.9,97,515/- On Account Of Short Deduction Of Tds Based On Proviso 2 To Section 40(A)(Ia) Which Was Introduced Only From 01.04.2013.”

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 201Section 40

…f the machinery M/s. Phaloudi Construction Co. ITANo.657/Ind/2017 hire charges have duly offered the amount received by them to tax in their regular return of income. 9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Cocacola Beverages Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) has held that ‘no demand visualized under Section 201 (1) of the Income- tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in-charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee and this script is taken care of by amendment in section 201(1) with effect from 01.07.2012 which spares liability from t…

Deepak Bajaj, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-37(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 86/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 86/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deepak Bajaj.................................………………………….....................................................Appellant 19/1, Vidyasagar Street, Kolkata – 700 009 [Pan: Aeepb 5525 K] Ito, Ward 37(1) Kolkata...................…………………………………………………….......Respondent Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. Appearances By: Shri Dilip Chatterjee, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 21, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 25, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtapthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – Xxiv, Kolkata Dated 15.10.2014 Whereby He Confirmed The Disallowance Of Rs. 63,58,503/- Made By The A.O. U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Production Of Telefilm. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 29.03.2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 9,76,789/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed By The A.O. That The Following Expenditure Was Incurred By The Assessee During The Year Under Consideration: “I. Artist Remuneration Rs. 34,69,225/- Ii. Studio Hire Charges Rs. 13,20,000/- Iii. Equipment Hire Charges Rs. 8,19,000/- Rs. 7,50,278/-‘’ Iv. Interest On Loan

Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40Section 409a

…treated as the assessee in default for non-deduction of tax at source on the said payment and the question of making disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT reported in 293 ITR 226. He has submitted that the Assessing Officer may verify this claim of the assessee and allow appropriate relief to the assessee by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The learned DR has not raised any objection for sending the matter to the Assessing Officer for such…