9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (10) TMI 315 - HC - Income TaxInterest on TDS - Payment made to Joint Venture - ITAT held that it is not an Association of Persons and TDS is required to be deducted - held that - at least till the Advance Ruling Authority passed an order, the Department itself did not deem it fit to reject the assessee s claim that the payments were made under Section 194C, treating the joint venture as Association of Persons. In the background of these circumstances, we hold that the reliance placed on the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. British Airways 2010 (1) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT in almost similar circumstances, comes to the aid of the assessee herein. - Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi Versus Eli Lilly & Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (3) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT It is a matter of record that the foreign company had remitted tax as per Section 44BBB at 4.8% and had also sought for refund therein. In the light of the said decision, we hold that the assessee cannot be mulcted with any liability by way of interest to be charged under Section 201(1A). Thus, applying the decision in British Airways (supra), considering the consistent stand taken by the assessee and the parties to the agreement that the status of the joint venture was only Association of Persons, we hold that there could be no case for levying interest under Section 201(1A).
Issues involved:
1. Whether the joint venture of H.C.C. Ltd and Van Oord ACZ (VOACZ) should be treated as an Association of Persons for tax purposes. 2. Whether the Chennai Port Trust was correct in deducting tax at source under Section 195C of the Income Tax Act. 3. Whether the Advance Ruling Authority's decision on the status of the joint venture as not an Association of Persons is legally valid. 4. Whether the assessee can be held liable for interest under Section 201(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Issue 1: The main issue in this case was whether the joint venture of H.C.C. Ltd and Van Oord ACZ (VOACZ) should be considered an Association of Persons (AOP) for tax purposes. The Advance Ruling Authority had ruled that the joint venture was not an AOP, and the foreign company was liable to be assessed on its own profits. The assessee contended that the joint venture should be treated as an AOP based on the terms of the joint venture agreement. However, the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the Tribunal held that the joint venture should be treated as a payment made to the foreign company, justifying the levy of interest under Section 201(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Issue 2: The Chennai Port Trust had initially deducted tax under Section 195C of the Income Tax Act at the rate of 2%, treating the joint venture as an Association of Persons. However, following the Advance Ruling Authority's decision that the joint venture was not an AOP, the Chennai Port Trust was held liable to deduct tax at source on the payment made to the foreign company under Section 195(1). The failure to deduct tax at source as per Section 195(1) resulted in a shortfall of deduction for the assessment years in question, leading to interest being levied under Section 201(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Issue 3: The Advance Ruling Authority's decision on the status of the joint venture as not an Association of Persons was challenged by the assessee, who sought a recalling of the ruling. The Authority rejected the petition, stating that the order was not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. The Authority highlighted conflicting claims made by the assessee and the foreign company regarding the status of the joint venture, ultimately upholding its original ruling that the joint venture was not an AOP. Issue 4: The question of whether the assessee could be held liable for interest under Section 201(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act was extensively discussed. The Tribunal held the assessee responsible for not deducting the correct tax at source, leading to the levy of interest. However, the High Court, considering the conflicting claims and the ongoing debate on the status of the joint venture, held that the assessee could not be declared as an assessee in default for the purpose of interest under Section 201(1A). The Court relied on a Supreme Court decision and the consistent stand taken by the parties involved to conclude that no interest should be levied under Section 201(1A). In conclusion, the High Court allowed the Tax Case Appeals, ruling that the assessee could not be held liable for interest under Section 201(1A) due to the ongoing debate and the consistent belief that the joint venture should be treated as an Association of Persons for tax purposes.
|
