TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and is vitiated by non-application of mind and violative of the principles of natural justice? – Held, NO - I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. It is however made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the contentions with regard to the applicability of section 44BBB - - - - - Dated:- 13-3-2003 - Judge(s) : P. K. MISRA. JUDGMENT P. K. MISRA J. -The petitioner is a foreign company registered in Italy. The petitioner had entered into contracts with the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, the second respondent. It is claimed that the contracts were on Turnkey basis for implementation of a comprehensive power project for the second respondent. It is the contention of the petitioner that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to deduct tax at the rates applicable as per the Income-tax Act. . . The petitioner has contended that such cancellation is illegal and contrary to the provisions contained in section 197(1) and (2) read with section 44BBB of the Act and is vitiated by non-application of mind and violative of the principles of natural justice. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits under section 44BBB of the Income-tax Act, is a matter relating to the question of assessment. Any discussion on the questions raised by the petitioner or the respondents at this stage is uncalled for as the matter is required to be considered by the appropriate authority and any opinio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n had been taken by the petitioner having financial ramifications. Even assuming that such decision is applicable, in the present case it is apparent that certain information has been called for from the petitioner. It cannot be said that the present action by the respondents is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Moreover, even if the certificate for deduction at source at a lower rate is withdrawn, the consequence of such withdrawal would be that deduction has to be made at a higher rate, but ultimately the question of liability is to be decided in assessment proceedings. The liability of the petitioner is not being finally determined at the time of the withdrawal of the certificate. If ultimately it is found that the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
