9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made from the deductor. In the light of the ratio of the decision, in the instant case, the NOIDA authority is required to pay tax as well as interest if any corresponding to the lease rental paid the assessee. However, if such tax and interest are not paid by the NOIDA, the assessee cannot be exonerated from the liability under section 201(1) and 201(1A). We find that in the instant case, CIT(A) has deleted liability under section 201(1) of the Act but retained the interest liability under section 201(1A) of the Act. The first appellate authority in assessment year 2011- 12, has deleted the interest liability as held that Noida Authorities are under an obligation to comply with the provision of the law relating to TDS and also for makin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le issuing such directions to the the AO, Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate:- i) That Such direction is contrary to the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajesh Projects (P) Ltd. (78 taxmann.com 263(Del)) where it has been held by High Court that since deduction of tax could not be made due to insistence of GNOIDA, the liability to pay the deduction of tax with interest till the date of judgment (16.02.2017) would be of GNOIDA and after that the liability to deduct tax will be on the deductor. (Para 20(2) and 21 of the Judgment). ii) That when the assessee is held to be the assessee not-in-default then first proviso to section 201(1) cannot be applied. iii) That the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ease rent payment made to the Noida Authority. However, in view of the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajesh Project (India) (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (TDS)-II, (2017) 78 taxmann.com 263 (Delhi), the learned CIT(A) deleted the liability under section 201(1), but sustained the interest liability under section 201(1A) of the Act, observing as under: 4.11 In view of the letter received from NOIDA Authority the appellant had reasonable cause not to deduct TDS on payments made to NOIDA. Therefore, following the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court the appellant is not considered to be an assessee-in- default; however, it does not absolve the appellant from the interest liability u/s 201(1 A). Hence, in view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajesh projects (India) (P) Ltd (supra) has directed as under: 21. In view of the above conclusions, it is hereby directed that wherever amounts have been paid by the petitioners, towards TDS as a result of the coercive process used by the Revenue, the GNOIDA shall make appropriate orders to credit/reimburse such payments. In case payments are made through deposit, over and above the rental amounts paid to the GNOIDA, without TDS, the income tax authorities shall not pursue any coercive proceedings; GNOIDA shall duly reimburse the petitioners for such amounts. Any amounts deposited in the court or with the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1(1) of the Act but retained the interest liability under section 201(1A) of the Act. The first appellate authority in assessment year 2011- 12, has deleted the interest liability observing as under: 5(v). Thus, the directions given by Hon ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Rajesh Projects (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (supra) have also been upheld by Hon ble Supreme Court and these directions are upheld on the ground of adjusted equities . Considering the above position of tact and law. I am lead to concluded the appellant has not been considered to be liable for deduction of tax and NOIDA has been held to be under an obligation to comply with the provision of law relating to TDS and also for making all relate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
