9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1066X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations made on the basis of the decision of Allahabad Bank V ITO, (2014 (6) TMI 672 - ITAT AGRA). - ITA No. 1286 to 1289/Chd/2012 - - - Dated:- 15-9-2014 - SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by: Shri Vineet Thakral Respondent by: Shri Mahavir Singh O R D E R PER T.R. SOOD, A.M These appeals are directed against the order dated 21.9.2012 of the Ld CIT(A), Chandigarh. 2. In all these appeals the assessee has raised common grounds which are as under: 1 That the order of the A.C.I.T. (TDS) is bad in law and on facts. 2 That the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciating the materials on the record and facts of the case. 3 That the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stead of 22.66% u/s 194-I. Therefore a show cause notice was issued that why action should not be taken u/s 201(1) and 201(1A). In response it was mainly stated that proper TDS has been deducted on rent portion. Lessor was also requested to provide maintenance services such as Lift, DG Sets, HVAC all Split A.C, water treatment equipment, fire safety system, UPS, electrical lighting and pannles, glass door and windows, health club equipment maintenance, control system, miscellaneous equipments, security, housekeeping and gardening. Further the assessee had renegotiated terms of the earlier agreement and separate agreement on account of maintenance and service charges was entered. Maintenance charges were negotiated at ₹ 11.4 per sqft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t., This view of not charging interest u/s 201 (1A) on account of excess deposit of tax by the assessee deductee was held in the following cases: CIT V. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd, 288 ITR 379 (Delhi) CIT V. Rishikesh Apartments Co-op Housing Ltd. 253 ITR 310 (Guj) Below is the tax information in relation to deductee gathered by the assessee-company: Financial year Returned Income/Loss (In Rs) Tax due Tax deposited/TDS deducted (In Rs) Refund (In Rs.) 2005-06 61,68,344 -- 18,895,455 18,895,455 2006-07 183,400,082 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant cannot be accepted. The demand created at ₹ 6,35,960 u/s 201 (1A) is accordingly upheld and all the grounds taken by the appellant are dismissed. 5 Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee made detailed submissions that it was not a case of composite agreement and the assessee has correctly deducted TDS. In any case as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd V CIT (supra) as well as Board circular No. 275/201/95-IT(B) dated 29.1.1997 if the deductee has already made payment then the assessee cannot be held in default. He refered to the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) that in fact deductee was not supposed to make any payment in view of the losses and lot of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecedent) - Assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 -Whether recovery provisions u/s 201 (1) can be invoked only when loss to revenue is established and that can only be established when it is demonstrated that recipient of income has not paid due taxes thereof and he has liability to pay tax - Held - yes - Whether interest u/s 201(1A) is admittedly a compensatory interest in nature which seeks to compensate revenue for delay in realization of taxes and, therefore where recipient of income had no tax liability embedded in such payments, there would be no question of delay in realization of taxes and thus provisions of section 201 (1A) would not be invoked - Held yes. The highlighted portion clearly shows that interest is of compensatory natu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
