9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent : Ms. Neeraja Pradhan ORDER Per R. C. Sharma (A.M.) : These Stay Applications are filed by the assessee with respect to the demand raised under Sections 201(1) & 201(1)A for the assessment years 2009-2010 to 2012-2013. 2. It was contended by learned AR that assessee is not liable to deduction of tax at source in respect of discount allowed to its distributor on bulk sells of Starte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 201(1A) or to impose penalty for non-deduction of TDS for the reason that there is no loss of Revenue as the tax has been paid by the recipient. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 293 ITR 226, it was contended by the learned AR that assessee is not liable under Section 201(1), insofar as taxes have already been paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand as well as early fixation of hearing. 4. On the other hand, learned DR strongly opposed the stay application and contended that there is no pressure by the department for recovery of any tax, accordingly, bench should only grant early hearing. 5. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the stay application and found that the demand has been raised under Sections 201(1) & 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest under Section201(1A) amounting to Rs.65,098,929/- for all the four years under consideration, the assessee has already paid Rs.73,000,000/-, which means 112.14% of the interest demand. Thus, even as per verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court where the assessee cannot be made liable for payment of tax under Section 201(1) in respect of payment of tax by the recipient of income, the assessee is l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
