9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1309/Del/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 which are as follows: 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not quashing as null and void the impugned order under s. 201 of the Act (for non deduction of tax at source) passed by the AO; ignoring that - 1) The show-cause notice under s. 201 was issued by the AO to the non-existent Jaypee Sports International Ltd which already stood amalgamated (with Jaiprakash Associates Limited). 2) The order under s. 201 too was passed on the said non-existent company pursuant to the notice issued and proceedings conducted on the same. The AO did not substitute the amalgamated company as the assessee despite proper intimation of amalgamation given by the amalgamated company. 3) The AO did not substitute the amalg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o compute the interest payable by the appellant with reference to the aforesaid tax; and up to the date of payment of such tax by the appellant or the foreign company whichever is earlier. All grounds are without prejudice to each other. Further, the appellant craves leave to add, amend or forgo any of the grounds. 3. Jaypee Sports International Limited (JPSI) during FY 2011- 12, merged with Jaiprakash Associates Limited paid USD 40,124,120 to Formula One World Championship Ltd (FOWC). The payment was in respect of the Motor-Racing event held in India in 2011 (GP-2011) under the detailed terms of the relevant Race Promotion Contract. The payment was made without deduction of tax under bonafide belief that it was business income and, in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of maintainability of the Assessment order, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice u/s. 201 on the non-existent Jaypee Sports International Ltd. which already stood amalgamated. Thus, the assessment order itself is bad in law. As regards Ground No.2 and 3 liability of tax u/s. 201 (1) and liability of interest u/s. 201 (1A), the Ld. AR submitted that foreign company i.e. Formula One World Championship Ltd." had already been assessed in respect of its income chargeable in India including income from the fee received from the assessee and had discharged its Indian tax liability by direct payment as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Formula One World Championship Ltd. vs. CIT-Intern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (supra) has already been taxed and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed the same in foreign company's case, it will be appropriate to remand back this issue for modifying the demand if any arise after verifying the records as per decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in foreign company's case, as the assessee has already deducted the TDS and paid the same with interest. Needless to say the assessee be given an opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. Ground No.2 and 3 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. All the three appeals are identical hence, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose 8. In result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statisti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
