9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of provision of section 194J of the Income Tax, 1961 by the Ld. ITO (TDS) to the appellant thereby holding that the provisions of section 194C of the Income Tax Act are not applicable. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in holding that the interest u/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is leviable till the filing of Income Tax Return by the Deductee and not till the financial year end." 3 In addition to above the assessee has also taken an additional ground which reads as under: "Additional ground - " That the provision of section 194J or 194C are not applicable to payments made by the assessee to HRTC as being in the nature the reimbursement of ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as charged interest u/s 201(1A) till the date of service whereas such interest should have been charged till date of payment of taxes by the payee in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Coca cola Beverage P. Ltd.V CIT, 293 ITR 226 (S.C). It was further submitted that since HRTC is regularly assessed to tax with Circle 1, Shimla and is duly showing the payment, therefore, the taxes has been paid by HRTC and the assessee was not required to deduct any tax. In any case the HRTC was running in losses, therefore, there is a presumption that HRTC has paid the taxes. It was also submitted that the payment made by the assessee to HRTC cannot be categorized as payment for professional services. 9 The ld. CIT(A) co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TJ(Kol)1 4. The Karnavati Coop. Bank Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ITAT Ahmedabad D Bench (2012)144TTJ(Ahd)769 5. ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITAT Lucknow A Bench (2012)156 TTJ(Lucknow) 569 11 Secondly since the payee i.e. HRTC has already paid the taxes because they have already shown these receipts in the books of account and that means that the payee had already paid the taxes and the assessee cannot be called upon to pay the taxes and at best the assessee can be asked to pay the interest. For this proposition, the ld. counsel of the assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Coca cola Beverage P. Ltd.V CIT (supra). 12 On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue strongly supported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd was reimbursing the expenditure to the HRTC. The provisions of TDS i.e. Section 194J are not applicable if it s only a case of reimbursement of expenditure. The reason for the same is very clear. For example if HRTC is giving salary to its Divisional Manager, it will deduct full tax and pay the same accordingly. If the assessee authority deduct the tax on account of salary to Divisional Manager then that would amount to double deduction of taxes of the salary of Divisional Manager which is not possible. The assessee is not paying lump sum charges to the HRTC which can be construed as service charges. It is only the reimbursement of pre determined rates. Same view has been taken by other Benches of the Tribunal in following cases: "1. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
