Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (1) TMI 1561

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ngaged in providing water and sanitation in Bangalore Metropolitan Area. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee and M/s Pacific Consultants International (PCI), a company organized and established under the laws of Japan, entered into an agreement, for consultancy services vide agreement dated 29- 11-1996 in consortium with M/s Mott Macdonald Ltd., (UK) and M/s Tata Consulting Engineers of India for implementation of Cauvery Stage-IV to draw 730 Mn. Litres of water per day from Cauvery River. The assessee by virtue of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 26-05-1995 entered into an agreement with the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund of Japan (OECF) whereby the Government of India obtained a loan vide loan agreement N.ID-P10 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rds the appeals for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2002-03 are concerned, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has raised the additional grounds of appeal relating to the issue of limitation and therefore, these appeals are pending before the Tribunal. Going through the files, we find that the assessee has raised the following additional grounds of appeal; 1. The orders in respect of 201 passed for the FYs: 1998-99, 1999-2000. 2000-01 2001-02 have become time barred by limitation as orders for these years were passed beyond four years from the end of the relevant financial years. 2. The lower authorities erred in not appreciating that merely because the chargeability of the incomes of PCI is shifted to Ar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f tax at source, a period of four years is a reasonable time. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal at Bangalore Bench in the case of TRO Vs M/s Bharat Hotels Ltd., wherein the Tribunal after considering the decision of the Delhi High Court and also the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Secretary, Sultan Battery Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., CIT Vs reported in 261 ITR 364 (wherein it was held that the demand raised u/s 201 201(1A) is not barred by limitation) and held that the Hon ble Kerala High Court has not considered the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhatinda District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., and therefore, the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Mahindra Ltd., considered the following question in the appeal before it; Whether on the facts and the circumstances and in law an order u/s 195 read with sec.201 of the IT Act, 1961 is barred by limitation within four years from the end of the relevant financial year in the absence of any express provision in the Act 7. He submitted that the issue of limitation with respect to initiation of proceedings does not seem to be the issue referred by the Special Bench by its proceedings and therefore, any conclusion drawn by the Special Bench would at best be in the nature of obiter dicta not binding on any other assessee. 8. He submitted that even if there is any conflict between the decision of the Special Bench and the Delhi High .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Mahindra Mahindra after considering the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation only a has come to the conclusion that the limitation period for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 201(1) 201(1A) is 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year where the tax deducted is less than ₹ 1.00 lakh and if it is more than 1.00 lakh, the limitation period would be 6 years. As the Special Bench has considered the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court and the order of the Tribunal is in consonance with the decision of the Delhi High Court and it has only prescribed the quantum limits and the time limit for such quantum, we are inclined to follow t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates