TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 2104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ble Supreme Court in a recent case of Skylight Hospitality LLP [ 2018 (4) TMI 529 - SC ORDER] has held that the wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected u/s 292B of the IT Act. In fact, the A.O has passed a corrigendum dated 22.01.2018, correcting the name of the assessee and therefore, there is no infirmity in the assessment order. In view of the same, the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is rejected. TDS u/s 194C - Liability to deduct tax at source on discount extended to its pre-paid distributors on distribution of pre-paid services - Since the issues are covered in favour of Revenue in the assessee s own case by the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, we are b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed up to Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it has been held that the provisions of Sec. 194H of the IT Act are applicable in respect of amounts paid to the agents in connection with sale of SIM cards and other services. Thus, following the said judgment, the A.O raised the demand u/s 201(1) of the IT Act and also interest u/s 201(1A) of the IT Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the A.O who confirmed the order of the A.O, and the assessee is in second appeal before us. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Ground No. 1- The order passed by the learned TDS officer as well as the by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d distributors is not that of 'Principal to Principal' and the discount allowed to them is in nature of commission liable for tax deduction at source as envisaged under section 194H of the Act. 2.3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)/TDS Officer have erred in not appreciating the fact that there is no payment/credit to the account of distributors by the Appellant towards the discount extended to them and therefore, provisions of section 194H of the Act do not apply on such discount. 2.4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)/TDS Officer have erred in not appreciating that the discount allowed by the Appellant is not income in the hands of its dist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aising demand under section 201 (1) of the Act even though taxes would have been paid on income earned from further distribution of prepaid SIM Cards/ talk time provided by the Appellant. Such an action of the learned TDS Officer has resulted in double recovery of taxes, which is against the rules of taxation principles. 4. Ground No.4 - No Interest under section 201(lA) of the Act can be charged 4.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned TDS Officer in charging interest under section 201(lA) of the Act. 3. At the time of hearing the appeal on 28.02.2018, it was pointed out to the assessee, that the ground of appeal No. 1, was not raised bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the assessee only i.e. the merged company and therefore, the proceedings were validly initiated and the mentioning of the name of the non-existing company in the assessment order is only a technical mistake which has subsequently been rectified by the A.O, by passing a corrigendum dated 22.01.2018. She submitted that the corrigendum dates back to the dates of the assessment order and therefore assessment order is rightly passed in the name of the assessee and need not be set aside. 6. Having regard to the rival contentions and material on record, we find that the assessee Vodafone South Ltd., had merged with Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd., and had intimated to the relevant A.O and CIT(A) about the said merger. We find that the A.O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
