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 367,154 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

Hi-Lite Builders Private Limited, Kozhikode vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/COCH/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Shameem Ahamed, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…06] dated SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 c. Hon'ble SC in the case of Allied Motors P Ltd, Extrusions Ltd d. Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1993] 88 ITR 192 (SC). e. Apex Court judgment in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226/163 Taxman 355, in its proper perspective. 7. The CIT(A) has relied solely on the case law Thomas George Muthoot (2015) 63 taxman.com 99 (Ker) and failed to consider the legality that the Judgement of the Supreme Court prevails over the judgement of the Jurisdictional high court. 8. The appellant further submits that applying the judgment of the…

Three C Homes Private Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-76(1), Delhi

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

ITA 958/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rishabh Jain, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari R., Sr. DR
Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 251(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. N. Prasad, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 958/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Three C Homes Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, D-32, East of Kailash, Circle-76(1), New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCT7045E Assessee by : Sh. Rishabh Jain, AR Revenue by : Ms. Rajeshwari R., Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 28.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 05.01.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi dated 28.…

M/S. Ravi Shree Narayan Transport, Bhilai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur

ITA 107/RPR/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 105 To 107/Rpr/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2009-10 M/S Ravi Shree Narayan Transport Acc Main Gate, Jamul Square, Jamul, Bhilai.(C.G.)Pan : Ashfr7461F . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Tds, Raipur (C.G.) द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 22/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am The Present Bunch Of Appeals Is Challenged Against The Consolidated Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Turned Out Of Consolidated Order Passed U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, By The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Tds), Raipur [For Short “Ao”], For Three Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2006-07 To 2008-09. Itat-Raipur Page 1 Of 14

For Appellant: Shri S. R. RaoFor Respondent: Shri G. N. Singh
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…) of the Act. 2. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226/163 Taxman 355 (SCC) while sustaining the TDS demand of Rs. x,xx,xxx/- u/s 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Interest demand of Rs. x,xx,xxx/- charged u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 3. The order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law and facts. ITAT-Raipur Page 2 of 14 M/s Ravi Shree Narayan Transport ITA No. 105 to 107/RPR/2020 A…

M/S. Ravi Shree Narayan Transport, Bhilai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur

ITA 106/RPR/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 105 To 107/Rpr/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2009-10 M/S Ravi Shree Narayan Transport Acc Main Gate, Jamul Square, Jamul, Bhilai.(C.G.)Pan : Ashfr7461F . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Tds, Raipur (C.G.) द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 22/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am The Present Bunch Of Appeals Is Challenged Against The Consolidated Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Turned Out Of Consolidated Order Passed U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, By The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Tds), Raipur [For Short “Ao”], For Three Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2006-07 To 2008-09. Itat-Raipur Page 1 Of 14

For Appellant: Shri S. R. RaoFor Respondent: Shri G. N. Singh
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…) of the Act. 2. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226/163 Taxman 355 (SCC) while sustaining the TDS demand of Rs. x,xx,xxx/- u/s 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Interest demand of Rs. x,xx,xxx/- charged u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 3. The order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law and facts. ITAT-Raipur Page 2 of 14 M/s Ravi Shree Narayan Transport ITA No. 105 to 107/RPR/2020 A…

M/S. Ravi Shree Narayan Transport, Bhilai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Raipur

ITA 105/RPR/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 105 To 107/Rpr/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2009-10 M/S Ravi Shree Narayan Transport Acc Main Gate, Jamul Square, Jamul, Bhilai.(C.G.)Pan : Ashfr7461F . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Tds, Raipur (C.G.) द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 22/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am The Present Bunch Of Appeals Is Challenged Against The Consolidated Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Turned Out Of Consolidated Order Passed U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, By The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Tds), Raipur [For Short “Ao”], For Three Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2006-07 To 2008-09. Itat-Raipur Page 1 Of 14

For Appellant: Shri S. R. RaoFor Respondent: Shri G. N. Singh
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…) of the Act. 2. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226/163 Taxman 355 (SCC) while sustaining the TDS demand of Rs. x,xx,xxx/- u/s 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Interest demand of Rs. x,xx,xxx/- charged u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 3. The order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law and facts. ITAT-Raipur Page 2 of 14 M/s Ravi Shree Narayan Transport ITA No. 105 to 107/RPR/2020 A…

The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Eminemt Infracon Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue isdismissed

ITA 1416/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2013-14 Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) Vs. M/S.Eminent Infraconp.Ltd. Ahmedabad. 201, Satyam Complex Opp: R.K. Royal Hall Science City Road Sola, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aacce 3246 Q

For Appellant: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 201Section 250(6)Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 ITO, Ward-2(1)(1) Vs. M/s.Eminent InfraconP.Ltd. Ahmedabad. 201, Satyam Complex Opp: R.K. Royal Hall Science City Road Sola, Ahmedabad. PAN : AACCE 3246 Q (Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee by : Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR Revenue by सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Da…

Neena Kaul, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1386/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalneena Kaul, Techniplex-2, Unit No.2, 10Th Floor, Opp. Hotel Grand Sarovar Park Premiere, Goregaon (W), Mumbai. Pan: Anapk4255A ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-24(3), Mumbai. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil G. Rohra / J.K. Chavan, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

…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, [2007] 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.” 6. In view of the above decision of honourable jurisdictional High court ground no.4 raised by the…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-1, New Delhi vs. Dinesh Kumar Mathur, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1016/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 206ASection 260ASection 40

…s that the payee, i.e., Aakriti Creations has included the impugned receipts in its return of income for taxation purposes. Thus, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 293 ITR 226 (SC) read with Ansal Land Mark Township (supra) once the payee has been found to have included the payments received and already paid the taxes, the payer/deductor can at best be asked to pay the interest on delay in depositing tax. However, the assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default for non deduction of TDS for the purposes of provisi…

M/S Soul Space Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (TDS), New Delhi

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

ITA 1084/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2012-13 Soul Space Projects Ltd., Vs. Dcit (Tds), No.409, 4Th Floor, Dlf Tower-A, Circle-51 (1), Jasola, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aajcs7736F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocates; & Shri Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2016 Of The Cit(A)-41, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:- “1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Assessee In Default U/S 201(1) Of The Act In Respect Of Tds Liability Of Rs.2,01,30,477/-. 2. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Appellant Is Liable To Pay Interest Of Rs.48,31,315/- U/S 201(1A) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On The Aforesaid Tds Liability Of Rs.2,01,30,477/-. 3. The Appellant Reserves Their Right Without Prejudice To Add, Delete, Alter Modify Or Otherwise Present Any Grounds Of Appeal Either Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain &For Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 191Section 194Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

…ularly in the light of the provisions of section 191 of the Act and CBDT Instruction F.No.275/201/95-IT(B) and various orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi including the judgement in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage, 293 ITR 226 (SC) and the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township, 377 ITR 635 (Del). 4. Replying to the above, the ld. CIT-DR strongly supported the assessment as well as the first appellate order and submitted that in the instant case, the tax u/s 194 of the Act against the interest was deducted on 31.03.2…

Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT (TDS), Dehradun

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7499/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 7498/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7499/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mayank Prabha Tomar, Addl. CIT
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271CSection 274Section 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH ‘DB’, DEHRADUN Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 7498/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 7499/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Yes Bank Ltd., Vs Add. CIT(TDS), 9th Floor, Discovery of India Dehradun , Bldg., Nehru Centre, Dr. AB Uttarakhand-248001 Road, Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400018 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACY2068D Assessee by : None Revenue by : Smt. Mayank Prabha Tomar, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing: 14.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 16.12.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accoun…

Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT (TDS), Dehradun

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7498/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 7498/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7499/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mayank Prabha Tomar, Addl. CIT
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271CSection 274Section 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH ‘DB’, DEHRADUN Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 7498/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 7499/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Yes Bank Ltd., Vs Add. CIT(TDS), 9th Floor, Discovery of India Dehradun , Bldg., Nehru Centre, Dr. AB Uttarakhand-248001 Road, Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400018 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACY2068D Assessee by : None Revenue by : Smt. Mayank Prabha Tomar, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing: 14.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 16.12.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accoun…

Desimus Financials Limited, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 659/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Desimus Financials Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Moga Road, Opp. Punjab Kesari, Pune Bagha Purana, Dist. Maoga, Punjab – 142 038 Pan Aaack9547K Appellant Respondent

Section 139Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 40

…as an assessee in default. The first proviso has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01-07-2012. 6 Decimus Financials Limited 7. At this juncture, it is relevant to consider the judgment in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC). This judgment of August, 2007 was rendered in the context of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court passed in October, 2006. The Hon‟ble Summit Court in this case was confronted with a situation in which the income was paid by the assessee without deduction of tax at source and the payee had already paid taxes on such income. The paye…

M/S Raj Auto Wheels P .Ltd., Ajmer vs. JCIT, Range-1, Ajmer

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

ITA 397/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocawteFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena, C IT-DR
Section 131Section 145(3)Section 194ASection 40

…due thereon considering the subjected amount paid to them of Rs.6,96,201/-. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid in the binding decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. v/s CIT (2007) 211 CTR (SC) 545: (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC)which, has very categorically held and rather prohibited the department to make recovery of the taxes again, in case where the recipient (the buyer) has already paid the taxes.In that case it was held as under: “It is required to note that the Department conceded before the Tribunal that the recovery could not once again be made from the tax…

M/S. Icici Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer (International Tax Ward)2(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1511/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(4)Section 204Section 49

…ITA No. 1511/Mum/2022 Assessment year 2015-16 Page 1 of 6 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘I’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President) and Amit Shukla (Judicial Member)] Assessment year 2015-16 ICICI Securities Limited ………………………….….. Appellant ICICI Venture House, Appasaheb Marathe Marg Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025 [PAN: AAACI0996E] Vs. Income Tax Officer International Taxation Ward 2(2)(2), Mumbai ………..………………….. Respondent Appearances: P J Pardiwala, Sr Advocate, along with Madhur Agarwal for the appellant Surabhi Sharma, Commissioner (DR) for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : Septe…

M/S Bina Metal Way (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2615/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2615/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Bina Metal Way (P) Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income, Ah-138, Salt Lake Vs Circle – 1(2), Kolkata Sector-Ii Kolkata - 700091 Pan : Aabcb1511D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 01/10/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issue Raised In Ground No. 1 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.10,19,235/- By The Ld. Cit(A) As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Pf & Esi Without Appreciating The Fact That The Payment Has Been Already Made Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 194ASection 250Section 37Section 40

…ese bill discounting charges in their return of income and if so, the same may kindly be deleted. While doing so we fortify our stand by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. Vs. CIT in [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC) wherein it was held as under:- “Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction of tax at source - Consequence of failure to deduct or pay - Whether where deductee, recipient of income, has already paid taxes on amount received from deductor, department once again cannot recover tax from deductor on same income by treating deductor to be…

Bird Hospitality Service Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-73(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1672/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR
Section 1Section 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

…has furnished the certificate in form no. 26A prescribed under Rule 31ACB, the payee assessee should not be treated as assessee in default in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Vs. CIT, 293 ITR 226 (SC). 4. In view of the scheme of Section 201 of the Act and also in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola (supra), where it is found that the recipient has disclosed the receipt in his return of income and tax has been paid on such receipts, in such circumstances, the assessee cannot be tr…

M/S Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 901/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a
Section 145(3)Section 40

…eover, the appellant failed to furnished any evidences that these parties had shown these interest payments in their respective return of income as income. The decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd., vs. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) could only held the appellant cause if it would have been able to furnish documentary evidence in support of its claim that M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. recipient had included payment as their income. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs. 2,39,196/- is sustained. As regards the disallowance of Rs. 90,000/-, I find that the appellant had made…

M/S Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 900/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a
Section 145(3)Section 40

…eover, the appellant failed to furnished any evidences that these parties had shown these interest payments in their respective return of income as income. The decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd., vs. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) could only held the appellant cause if it would have been able to furnish documentary evidence in support of its claim that M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. recipient had included payment as their income. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs. 2,39,196/- is sustained. As regards the disallowance of Rs. 90,000/-, I find that the appellant had made…

Shree Deepkala Processors, Jetpur vs. The ACIT(CPC) TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 164/RJT/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Oct 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 200A

…CPC Ghaziabad has also correctly charge the interest of Rs. 447/- on the short payment of Rs. 2444/-. The appellant in his submission dated 20/11/2017 has relied upon decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Vs. CIT, 293 ITR 226. But in my opinion ratio of this decision of Hon. Supreme Court and also circular no. 275/201/95J-IT (B) dated 29/01/1997 are not applicable to the case of the appellant in view of the fact that the appellant has not been able to furnish any evidences and details to show that the payee has shown the amount/income received from the appellant as hi…

Pooja Exports, Jetpur vs. The ACIT, TDS(CPC), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 163/RJT/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ld. Cit(A), Who Dismissed The Assessee’S Appeal With The Following Observations:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 154

…aziabad has also correctly charge the interest of Rs. 3,898.50/- on the short payment of Rs. 51,677/-. The appellant in his submission dated 16/11/2017 has relied upon decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Vs. CIT, 293 ITR 226. But in my opinion ratio of this decision of Hon. Supreme Court and also circular no. 275/201/95-IT dated 29/01/1997 are not applicable to the case of the appellant in view of the fact that the appellant has not been able to furnish any evidences and details to show that the payee has shown the amount/income received from the appellant as his inc…