TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying on Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd (2007 (8) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and CIT v. Eli Lilly & Co.(India) P. Ltd (2009 (3) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT). Thus the impugned orders of theCIT(A) are not infirm in any way requiring any interference. Against assessee. - ITA No.430 and 431/CTK/2011 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2013 - K K Gupta and K S S Prasad Rao, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri B K Mohapatra, AR For the Respondent : Smt S C Mohanty, DR ORDER:- Per: K S S Prasad Rao: These two appeals are filed by the assessee having been aggrieved by the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the respective AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08 by a common order dt.25.7.2011. 2. The assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued notice to the assessee, in response to which the deductor Company furnished the details of payments made to different TV channels on account of Air Time charges. From this statement he found that the payments made on account of Air Time Charges were subjected to TDS u/s.194C of the I.T.Act, but no TDS has been made from the said payments. Therefore, he asked the assessee vide notice dt.19.1.2010 to furnish explanation as to why it shall not be held as assessee in default in terms of provisions of Section 201(1) of the I.T.Act. Later on he has given another notice dt.28.9.2010 to show cause as to why the assessee should not be treated as assessee in default u/s.201(1) for noncompliance of the provisions of Chapter XVII. In response ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered the issue of levy of interest u/s.201(1A) of the I.T.Act and relying on the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd (293 ITR 267) and the decision rendered in the case of CIT v. Eli Lilly Co.(India) P. Ltd (178 Taxman 505/223 CTR 20) = (2009-TII-01-SC-INTL), has come to the conclusion that the levy of interest as made by the Assessing Officer is justified and hence, he upheld the orders passed by the Assessing Officer for both the AYs under consideration. 6. On careful consideration of the impugned orders and analyzing the decision given by the learned CIT(A) on the issues pleaded by the assessee before him, it is found that the learned CIT(A) has threadbare examined the issues ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
