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 366,470 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

Haldia Petrochemicals Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-57, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri H. Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 194ISection 197(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

…he Deductee, was assessed to NIL tax for the year in question by the ACIT, Cir.-7, Kolkata on a total loss of Rs. 2,82,83,400/-. According to the deductor, following the principle laid down in the case of Hindusthan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd., Vs. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC), where the payee is not liable to Income Tax, the payer cannot be liable to pay TDS. Regarding the payments made under the heads other than rent, it was stated that the license fee was for right to use roads and other space within the complex and the other amounts were expenses reimbursed on actual basis to HREL, which do not fall under the…

DCIT TDS 1(1), Mumbai vs. Emirates, Mumbai

ITA 4982/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4982 ,4983 & 4984/Mum/2013, अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 वष" Dcit (Osd) Tds-1(2), Room No.812, M/S. Emirates, Mittal Chambers, 228, K.G. Mittal, Hospital Bldg. Nariman Point, Ground Floor Vs. Charni Road Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aaace 1237 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ""या"ेप/C.O/215 -217/Mum/2014, ""या"ेप ""या"ेप ""या"ेप Arising Out Of Ita/4982-83,4984/Mum/2013 Ay.2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Emirates, Nariman Point Vs. Dcit (Osd) Tds-1(2), Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 002. (Cross Objector) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna and Ms. Anusha SinghFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Swamy-CIT -DR
Section 133ASection 194Section 197Section 201Section 201(1)Section 254(1)

…of 5 4982, 83 & 84/M/13-+CO.s Emirates (08-09 to 10-11)(6) return of income by MIAL, it was not liable to pay tax is MIAL had discharged its own tax liability on income received from the assessee.It relied upon the cases of Coca-Cola Beverages Private Ltd.(293 ITR 226) and Vodafone Essar Ltd., Mumbai (45 SOT 82). It was further stated that system error had resulted on account of incorrect processing of the TDS returns,that such errors had arisen because of incomplete information being in certain fields of TDS return forms completed by the assessee, that it had already filed revised TDS returns in which the err…

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages vs. Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with

ITA/194/2004HC Delhi01 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271

…Supreme Court's order 19. Civil Appeal No. 3765 of 2007 filed by the Appellant against the order dated 11th October 2006 passed by this Court was allowed by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Coco Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC). The Supreme Court referred to Circular No.275/201/95-IT(B) dated 29th January 1997 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes („CBDT‟), which declared that no demand under Section 201(1) of the 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-assess…

Hewlett - Packard India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 404/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Sharath Rao & Srinivas Maddury, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N., Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 17(2)(vi)Section 192Section 201Section 250

…but the payee has already paid the taxes on the same receipts. Therefore, the assessee cannot be held to be in default u/s. 201(1A) of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 293 ITR 226 (SC) and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court judgment in the case of Jagran Prakashan Ltd. v. DCIT, 345 ITR 288 (All). Page 4 of 5 3. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has submitted that the assessee has not filed any evidence in this regard and for this purpose, the matter can be sent to the Assessing Officer for verification. 4. Having carefully ex…

E Commerce Magnum Solutions Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

ITA 3179/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2016AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Swamy-CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 254(1)Section 40

…o it could not make payment of the TDS within the due date of filing return u/s.139 of the Act.Relying upon the CBDT Instruction No.275/201/95-IT(B) dated 29.01.1997 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca- Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.(293 ITR 226),the assessee argued that the payer/deductor was not 3179/Mum/2016(12-13(E.Commerce) liable to pay the amount of short/non-deduction of tax u/s.201(1) in cases where the payee/deductee had already included the relevant income in his total income and paid tax thereon,that it had made payment of interest u/s.201(1) up to the date of return filed b…

Late Sursh Parekh Through Legal Heir Smt. Bhavna, Suresh Parekh (Wife), Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4849/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4849/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Late Suresh M. Parekh Through Legal Ito-13(3)(1), Heir Smt. Bhavna Suresh Parekh (Wife) Mumbai बनाम/ A/002, A-Wing, Shiv Sagar Palace, Plot Vs. No. 68, Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai-400 089 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpp 6687 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mohd. Rizwan

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Rizwan
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

…T (in ITA Nos. 3324 & 4645/Mum/2013 dated 13.5.2016) has considered the said amendment as being only an attempt by the Legislature to operationalize and implement the decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC), whereby it stands held that TDS being only one of the modes for payment of tax, and which does not in any manner detract from the liability to tax of the deductee-payee, where the same (tax) has been paid by him (payee) it shall operate to save the assessee-payer from deducting the same or for being considered in default for that reason. We…

ITO 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Rajeshwaree Shipping & Logistics, Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7297/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri K. Mohan Das
Section 194CSection 40

…so noted that the ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has dealt with the individual fee/payment/charges and the conclusion arrived at therein is identical. It is worth quoting that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (293 ITR 226) held that where the deductee concerns have already paid taxes on the payments made by the assessee payer then the Department could not deduct tax from the deductor on the same income by treating the latter to be an “assessee in default”. Similarly, in the present case, the payees have offered the corresponding income in their returns, therefore,…

M/S Industrial Perforation India (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. I.T.O. WD - 5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 413/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.M Das, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 194JSection 200Section 234BSection 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. I 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 re…

DCIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Sealord Diving & Salvage P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s cross objection is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 701/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Cit-7(2), Sealord Diving & Salvage Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No. 624, M. K. Rd., Plot No. D-222/34, Ttc Industrial Mumbai-400 020 Area, Midc Shiravane, Nerul (E), Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakcs 0916 Q (Revenue) (Assessee) : C.O. No. 160/Mum/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 701/Mum/2013) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sealord Diving & Salvage Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit-7(2), बनाम/ Plot No. D-222/34, Ttc Industrial Room No. 624, M. K. Rd., Area, Midc Shiravane, Nerul (E), Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 026 (Cross Objector) : (Assessee) Revenue By : Shri Mohammed Rizwan : Shri Shailesh N. Doshi Assessee By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.05.2016 Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2016 Date Of Order आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection (Co) By The Assessee Agitating The Part Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated

For Respondent: Shri Mohammed Rizwan
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

…ay of second proviso and first proviso to section 40(a)(ia) and section 201(1) respectively by Finance Act, 2012 only seeks to and operationalize and implement the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC) holding that tax deduction at source being only one of the modes of payment of tax, where the same has been paid by the payee itself, the payer shall not be required to deduct tax at source once again. It is such views expressed by the tribunal per its various decisions, explaining the rationale of the amendment, that prevailed with the Hon’…

Mahindra Navistar Automotives Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT 2(2)

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

ITA 3324/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3324 & 4645/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Mahindra Navistar Automotives Dy. Cit, 2(2), Limited, Mumbai बनाम/ 128 A, Sanghavi Compound, Off. Mumbai Pune Highway, Vs. Opp. Jayashree Cinema, Chinchwad, Pune-411 019 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 7863 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. P. Mahajani ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. P. Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.02.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 13.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are A Set Of Two Appeals By The Assessee Agitating Its Assessments, I.E., As Modified By The First Appellate Authority, For Two Consecutive Years Being Assessment Under The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2007-08 & 2008-09. The Appeals Raising Common Issues Were Listed For & Are Accordingly Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of, By The Common, Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri H. P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri N. P. Singh
Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35(1)Section 37(1)Section 40

…) Mahindra Navistar Automotives Limited vs. Dy. CIT prescribed. In other words, the law seeks to put in place a system to implement and operationalize the decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC), wherein it stands clarified that tax deduction at source, being a mode of payment of tax, where the same stands deposited with the Exchequer by the payee, the same discharges the payer from the obligation to deduct the same. The said amendment has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township Pvt.…

ITO(TDS), WD-58(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paceman Sales Promotion Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1296/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rajaram Choudhury, CA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Tanuj Kr. Neogi, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

…ee by 42 days which is condoned with the consent of the Learned DR. We find that the cross objections of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages P Ltd vs CIT reported in (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC), wherein it was held that where the payee has already paid the tax on the income on which there was a short deduction of tax at source, recovery of tax cannot be made once again from the tax deductor. However, we find that in view of our aforesaid findings and decision that no tax need to be deducted on the purchase contract for wind electri…

M/S Bharti Hexacom Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and department’s appeal dismissed

ITA 3394/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra: & Shri A.T. Varkey:

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla CA &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 194HSection 194JSection 234BSection 35ASection 40Section 54

…im through the purchase and sale of prepaid cards. He pointed out that if the deductee has already paid all taxes no disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)(ia) in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. 293 ITR 226. 24. Ld. DR submitted that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Idia Cellular, relied by AO, has held that discount allowed to distributors is covered by the provisions of section 194H. Ld. DR submitted that AO while doing assessment has to independently decide whether there was default of non-deduction of tax or not. He submitted tha…

Bansilal Leisure Parks Ltd, Kolkata vs. I.T.O (TDS) 57(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 506/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 206(6)Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

…Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that all the parties to whom the sales were made by the assessee, have paid the taxes by filing their income tax returns. The assessee relied on the order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Coca-cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) wherein it was held that “the tribunal came to the right conclusion that the tax once again could not be recovered from the appellant (deductor assessee) since the tax has already been paid by the recipient of income. However, the ld. CIT(A) has disregarded the plea of the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee. Being aggrie…

ITO(TDS), WD-58(4), Kolkata vs. Sri Nirmal Kumar Kejriwal., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 249/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: None appeared
Section 133ASection 206CSection 206C(1)Section 206C(6)

…return of income, then the seller of the sawn timber (assessee herein) shall not be treated as assessee in default. For this he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd vs CIT reported in 293 ITR 226 (SC). 5. The Learned DR vehemently relied on the order of the Learned AO and argued that the provisions of section 206C of the Act use the word timber, which includes all types of timber. He further stated that the decision relied upon by the Learned AR on the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court decision was rendered in the context of sales tax proceedi…

Superintendent (Ddo), Hisar vs. ITO (TDS), Hisar

The appeals are allowed

ITA 4820/DEL/2011[2006-07 (F.Y.-2005-06)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant

For Respondent: Shri Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 17(2)Section 201Section 201(1)

…compliance, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has passed the orders which have been impugned before us in the present appeals. 4.4 The Learned CIT(Appeals) following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca-cola Beverages (P) Ltd. vs. CIT – 293 ITR 226 (SC) holding that if there was no dispute that the tax has already been paid by the deductee, the tax could not be recovered once again from the deductor subject to interest chargeable under sec. 201(1A) only for delay in discharging the liability by the deductee, directed the Assessing Officer to ascertain whether the deductee has already paid t…

First Global Stockbroking P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS) 1(5), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5256/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year: 2010-11 First Global Stockbroking Ito(Tds)-1(5), Pvt. Ltd. R. No.808, बनाम/ 2, Crescent Chambers, Smt. K.G. Mittal Aayurvedic Vs. 4Th Floor, Tamarind Lane, Hospital Bldg, Charni Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf0661K

Section 194JSection 201(1)

…as an assessee in default by placing reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. M/s. Mehta Vakil & Company Pvt. Ltd. order dt. 13.3.2015 (ITA No. 8741/Mum/2011) and further the decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 293 ITR 226 (SC). On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri Mukundraj M. Chate, defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order by placing reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in ACIT v. Twenty First Century Shares & Securities Ltd. (2013) 39 Taxmann.com 176 (Mumbai Trib) by further contending that the decision relied upon by the assessee in the cas…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. C.J. International Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the

ITA 21/DEL/2015[2006-07 (F.Y.- 2005-06)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CA
Section 133ASection 192Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…sessee still could not be treated in default because the receipts from the assessee were included by the payee in its total income. 7.5. In this regard, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Ltd. VS. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) has held that where the payee has ITA Nos.21,22, 25&26/Del/2015 already paid tax on the income on which there was a short deduction of tax at source, recovery of tax cannot be made once again from the tax deductor. Giving recognition to the principle laid down by the Hon’ble summit Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (supra)…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. C.J. International Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the

ITA 5347/DEL/2011[2006-07 (F.Y. 2005-06)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CA
Section 133ASection 192Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…sessee still could not be treated in default because the receipts from the assessee were included by the payee in its total income. 7.5. In this regard, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Ltd. VS. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) has held that where the payee has ITA Nos.21,22, 25&26/Del/2015 already paid tax on the income on which there was a short deduction of tax at source, recovery of tax cannot be made once again from the tax deductor. Giving recognition to the principle laid down by the Hon’ble summit Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (supra)…

M/S. Cj International Hotels Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the

ITA 4791/DEL/2011[2006-07 (F.Y. 2005-06)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CA
Section 133ASection 192Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…sessee still could not be treated in default because the receipts from the assessee were included by the payee in its total income. 7.5. In this regard, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Ltd. VS. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) has held that where the payee has ITA Nos.21,22, 25&26/Del/2015 already paid tax on the income on which there was a short deduction of tax at source, recovery of tax cannot be made once again from the tax deductor. Giving recognition to the principle laid down by the Hon’ble summit Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (supra)…

G.D.J.D.Exports, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2147/CHNY/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. B. Lakshminarayanan, IRS ,JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…the recipients of advance confirming the amount duly subject to tax in their return of income and no further liability arise. The ld. Authorised Representative also relied on the judgment of Apex Court in case of Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages P. Ltd vs. JCIT 293 ITR 226 and various High Courts held were the payee in a transaction offered to tax remittances received and there is no further tax liability, the assessee need not be penalized. Further, the ld. Assessing Officer has not understood the spirit of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and subject to tax. The assessee has demonstrated the amount has suffered tax in t…