9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in reducing the interest liability raised u/s. 201(1) relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s Nestle India Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 435 wherein it has been held that the deduction of income tax subject to regular assessment in the hands of the payee / recipients. Following the same the Ld. CIT(A) stated that AO (TDS) was not justified in enhancing the income of the expatriate employees by making addition on account of perquisites and disallowing the relief u/s. 90 of the I.T. Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that Section 201 was amended by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 1.6.2002 and the judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned order dated 9.5.2012 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee in the following manner:- A.Y. Total interest u/s. 201(1A) charged by AO(TDS) Interest upheld Relief allowed 2006-07 4,23,860 2,73,272 1,50,589 2007-08 4,86,373 2,94,299 1,92,072 2008-09 4,69,359 3,18,383 1,50,976 13,79,592 8,85,954 4,93,637 5. Against the above order of the Ld. CIT(A), Revenue appealed before us. 6. Ld. Counsel of the assessee filed a Paper Book having pages 1 to 74 containing the assessment records, written submissions etc. 7. Ld. Counsel of the assessee has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld. 7.1 On the other hand, Ld. DR has relied upon the order of the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cases of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 and CIT vs. Eli Lilly and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 255. He also submitted that further there is a new case in favor of the assessee decided by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court i.e. CIT vs. Delhi Public School, ITA No. 345/2009 order dated 31.10.2011, by applying the principle laid down in the case of CIT vs. Nestle India Ltd. (Supra) upheld the finding of the ITAT which held that those cases were not fit for passing the order u/s. 201(1) and consequently charging the interest u/s. 201(1A). 8. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records and precedents relied upon. In view of the aforesaid discussions and precedents, we find considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
