Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Ltd. v. CIT

258 ITR 496High Court2002#11378 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 2(28A)Section 57(iii)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 198Section 199

Judgments citing Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Ltd. v. CIT

Atul Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6055/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh.Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Atul Sharma 207, Lawyers Vs. Acit Chamber, Delhi High Court Circle – 61 (1) New Delhi-110003 New Delhi Pan No.Aarps6964J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 57

…duct Income-tax thereon at the rates in force." 5. Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, learned counsel for the Revenue, has placed reliance on the judgement of the Madras High Court in Viswapriya Financial Services & Securities Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 179 CTR (Mad) 334 (2002) 258 ITR 496 (Mad), wherein the Madras High Court held as follows: "The definition of Interest, after referring to the interest payable in any manner In respect of any moneys borrowed or debt incurred proceeds to include in the terms money borrowed or debt incurred, deposits, claims and other similar right or obligation" and further Includes any service fee…

Atul Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5803/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad & Sh. M.Balaganeshmr. Atul Sharma Vs. Ito 207, Lawyers Chamber Circle – 37(1) Delhi High Court, New Delhi New Delhi-110 003 Pan No. Aarps 6964 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Mr. Audhisthir Mehtani, Adv., Mr. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Shrey Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. & Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2024 Order Per M. Balaganesh:

Section 143(3)Section 57

…educt Income-tax thereon at the rates in force." 5. Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, learned counsel for the Revenue, has placed reliance on the judgement of the Madras High Court in Viswapriya Financial Services & Securities Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 179 CTR (Mad) 334 (2002) 258 ITR 496 (Mad), wherein the Madras High Court held as follows: "The definition of Interest, after referring to the interest payable in any manner In respect of any moneys borrowed or debt incurred proceeds to include in the terms money borrowed or debt incurred, deposits, claims and "other similar right or obligation" and further Includes any service fee…

Johnson Matthey Public Ltd. Company, Gurgaon vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

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

ITA 1143/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(C)Section 9(1)(vii)

…on account of the guarantee commission treating it as interest within the meaning of section 2(22A) of the Act and before the authorities below, the assessee placed reliance on a decision reported in Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Limited [2002] 258 ITR 496 (Madras) and CIT vs Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation [2003] 261 ITR 113 (Gujarat). It is, therefore. Clear that there is no dispute as to the facts involved in this matter insofar as Ground Nos.2 to 4 are concerned but only question is in respect of the taxability of such a receipt in India, and if so, under what category whether interest or other…

Khazana Jewllery Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the results, orders of the lower authorities for all the 20

ITA 1833/CHNY/2014[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1829, 1830, 1831, 1832 & 1833/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-2014. M/S. Khazana Jewellery Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, No.252-A, T.T.K. Road, Tds Circle I, Alwarpet, Chennai. Chennai 600 018. [Pan Aaack 2564Q ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Awyit Rakshit, IRS, JCIT
Section 194ASection 2Section 201Section 201(1)

…of the promotion schemes. According to him, such obligation came within the definition of interest u/s. 2(28A) of the Act. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Ltd vs. CIT 258 ITR 496, ld. Assessing Officer held that financial incentives offered by the assessee were nothing but interest on payments received from customers. Ld. Assessing Officer also took a view that incentives would also fall within the meaning of ‘’other charges’’ specified u/s. 2(28A) of the Act. Since assessee had failed to deduct tax at source as require…

Khazana Jewllery Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the results, orders of the lower authorities for all the 20

ITA 1832/CHNY/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1829, 1830, 1831, 1832 & 1833/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-2014. M/S. Khazana Jewellery Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, No.252-A, T.T.K. Road, Tds Circle I, Alwarpet, Chennai. Chennai 600 018. [Pan Aaack 2564Q ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Awyit Rakshit, IRS, JCIT
Section 194ASection 2Section 201Section 201(1)

…of the promotion schemes. According to him, such obligation came within the definition of interest u/s. 2(28A) of the Act. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Ltd vs. CIT 258 ITR 496, ld. Assessing Officer held that financial incentives offered by the assessee were nothing but interest on payments received from customers. Ld. Assessing Officer also took a view that incentives would also fall within the meaning of ‘’other charges’’ specified u/s. 2(28A) of the Act. Since assessee had failed to deduct tax at source as require…

Khazana Jewllery Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the results, orders of the lower authorities for all the 20

ITA 1831/CHNY/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1829, 1830, 1831, 1832 & 1833/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-2014. M/S. Khazana Jewellery Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, No.252-A, T.T.K. Road, Tds Circle I, Alwarpet, Chennai. Chennai 600 018. [Pan Aaack 2564Q ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Awyit Rakshit, IRS, JCIT
Section 194ASection 2Section 201Section 201(1)

…of the promotion schemes. According to him, such obligation came within the definition of interest u/s. 2(28A) of the Act. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Ltd vs. CIT 258 ITR 496, ld. Assessing Officer held that financial incentives offered by the assessee were nothing but interest on payments received from customers. Ld. Assessing Officer also took a view that incentives would also fall within the meaning of ‘’other charges’’ specified u/s. 2(28A) of the Act. Since assessee had failed to deduct tax at source as require…

Khazana Jewllery Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the results, orders of the lower authorities for all the 20

ITA 1830/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1829, 1830, 1831, 1832 & 1833/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-2014. M/S. Khazana Jewellery Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, No.252-A, T.T.K. Road, Tds Circle I, Alwarpet, Chennai. Chennai 600 018. [Pan Aaack 2564Q ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Awyit Rakshit, IRS, JCIT
Section 194ASection 2Section 201Section 201(1)

…of the promotion schemes. According to him, such obligation came within the definition of interest u/s. 2(28A) of the Act. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Ltd vs. CIT 258 ITR 496, ld. Assessing Officer held that financial incentives offered by the assessee were nothing but interest on payments received from customers. Ld. Assessing Officer also took a view that incentives would also fall within the meaning of ‘’other charges’’ specified u/s. 2(28A) of the Act. Since assessee had failed to deduct tax at source as require…

Neo Sports Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (TDS), Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4011/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Dr. K.ShivramFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 194Section 194ASection 194CSection 201(1)Section 263

…AO renders the order of AO erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue, therefore, the CIT was justified in invoking his power u/s.263. He placed reliance on the order of Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Viswapriya Financial Services, 258 ITR 496 in support of the proposition that any charges paid for services rendered is coming under the definition of the interest u/s.2(28A), accordingly CIT has correctly held that assessee was required to deduct tax on such bank guarantee commission u/s.194A. 7. We have considered rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of authorities below…

Neo Sports Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (TDS), Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4010/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Dr. K.ShivramFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 194Section 194ASection 194CSection 201(1)Section 263

…AO renders the order of AO erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue, therefore, the CIT was justified in invoking his power u/s.263. He placed reliance on the order of Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Viswapriya Financial Services, 258 ITR 496 in support of the proposition that any charges paid for services rendered is coming under the definition of the interest u/s.2(28A), accordingly CIT has correctly held that assessee was required to deduct tax on such bank guarantee commission u/s.194A. 7. We have considered rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of authorities below…