9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead with section 192 and the other set of cross appeals against CIT(A)'s order in the matter of demand raised under section 201(1A) read with section 192. As a matter of convenience, therefore, all the four appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2. Briefly the material facts giving rise to this litigation before us. Survey action under section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was carried out on 6th February, 1996 at the assessee's premises. Based on the information gathered during the course of the said survey and upon scrutinizing the annual tax deduction at source return filed on Form 24, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the assessee has failed to discharge his statutory obligation to deduct ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y these orders, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without much success. The CIT(A) gave relief only in respect of tax deduction at source liability in respect of the concessional loans granted to the employees and holiday home facility to the employees. It was held that so far as these facilities and perquisites were concerned the assessee was not under an obligation to deduct the tax at source. As regards the remaining allowances and reimbursements, the CIT(A) upheld, and in fact fortified, the action of the Assessing Officer. None of the parties are satisfied-revenue is aggrieved of the relief given by the CIT(A) in respect of TDS liability in respect of concessional loans granted to the employees and holiday ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt can be found in the act of the assessee-employer, and, accordingly, a demand under section 201 read with section 192 can be raised against the assessee-employer. This is so held by the Hon'ble MP High Court in the case of Gwalior Rayon Silk Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 832 and a large number of orders passed by the various co-ordinate benches have consistently followed this legal proposition. What is, therefore, required to be examined is not only the taxability of a particular allowance, reimbursement or perquisite but also whether the assessee could have any reasonable basis to come to the conclusion that tax is not deductible at source in respect of the said allowance, reimbursement, or perquisite. The authorities below, however, ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 57 to 1960 (Mum.) of 1989], ICICI Ltd. v. Fourth ITO [1993] 47 TTJ (Bom.) 401, Dr. Sanjiv P. Desai v. ITO [1997] 90 Taxman 137 (Ahd.) (Mag.), Cadbury India Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 4350, 4351, 4402 and 4403 (All.) of 1999], Singapore Airlines Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 2803-4 (Mum.) of 1999], Peregrine Capitals India Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 1848 (Mum.) of 1999], Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 3939 and 3987 (Mum.) of 1999], National Peroxide Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 5046 to 5048 (Mum.) of 1996], Asean Brown Boweri Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 1005 and 1006 (Bang.) of 1997], Procter & Gamble India Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 781 to 784 (Bom.) of 1990], Glaxo India Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 104 to 107 (Bom.) of 1990], Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 9869 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
