9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Coimbatore in ITA No. 19/2015-16 dated 30.11.2015 for assessment year 2012-13. 2. M/s. Quantum Knits Private Limited, the assessee, is a domestic company carrying on the business of manufacture of textiles, handlooms and powerlooms. The assessee is 100% subsidiary of KPR Mills Limited. During the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee paid ₹ 55,44,28,121,/- business promotional expenses to M/s. KPR Mills Limited, the holding company without deducting tax at source. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee based on the memorandum of agreement dated 24.06.2009, between the holding company a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of TDS on this payment is hit directly by the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and hence disallowed. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). 3. Before the CIT(A), the assessee took an alternative plea that M/s. KPR Mills Limited has accounted the entire payments at ₹ 54,40,85,961/- in their books of accounts under the head Miscellaneous receipts and have paid the tax on the same. Therefore, the assessee requested that it may be given a benefit of the Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd vs CIT[2007] 293 ITC 226(SC) as well as on the subsequent amendments in the Financial Act, 2012. It submitted that these issues were raised before the Assessing Officer during the course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure and law. The Board Circular No.275/201/95- IT dated 29.01.1997 quoted specifically pertains to the provisions of section 201(IA) and has no bearing on the larger question whether tax is liable to be deducted or not. 6) The learned CIT(A) failed to consider the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of Tube Investments of India Ltd vs. ACIT, TDS Circle-Il cited in [2009] 185 Taxman 438 (Mad) wherein it was held that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd was in the light of sections 201(1) and 201(IA) and cannot be applied to a situation where section 40(a)(ia) gets attracted which stands entirely on a different set of circumstances. 7) For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sons in ITA No. 1852/PN/2012, ITAT Hyderabad Bench A Hyderabad in the case of Plr Projects Vs. Department of Income Tax in ITA No. 1079/Hyd/2013 the assessee is entitled to relief. It is also to be noted that Finance Act 2012 has made an amendment to Section 201 (1) to the effect that the deductee has discharged the tax liability attributable to such receipts and has filed the return of income the deductor need not be held to be an assessee in default despite failure to deduct tax at source on such payments. In this present case it is observed that deductee has included the payment in its total income and has also filed the return of income. In effect the Department has not suffered any revenue loss and in the circumstances the amendment th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Addl. CIT (supra), which was subsequently confirmed by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ansal Landmark Township Pvt. Ltd. 377 ITR 635 (Del) and the same was not reverted by the High Court. Thus, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Star Investments Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Ansal Landmark Township Pvt. Ltd. 377 ITR 635 (Del), the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Since, there is no change in the facts and in law, following the co-ordinate bench decision in the assessee s case, supra, the Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 9. In the result, the Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 10th day of January, 2018 at Chennai. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
