Search Results For: 201(1A)


Atlas Copco (India) Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 5, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 10, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 201(1) TDS: The time limit specified in s. 201(3) & (4) for passing orders does not apply to cases where payments are made to non-residents. In cases of payments made to non-residents, an order passed after one year from the end of the FY in which the proceedings were initiated is void ab initio and liable to be quashed

In our considered opinion, where the payments are made to the entities/persons other than the persons specified in sub-section (3), the limitation period of one year from the end of financial year in which the proceedings u/s. 201 were initiated, as laid down by the Special Bench of Tribunal and affirmed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court would apply. In the instant case, since, the order u/s. 201 has been passed much after the elapse of one year period from the end of financial year in which proceedings u/s. 201 were initiated, the order u/s. 201 in the impugned assessment years is void-ab-initio and hence, is liable to be quashed

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Rajasthan High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: , , ,
DATE: July 11, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 4, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 194H, 201(1): An obligation to deduct TDS u/s 194H arises only if the relationship is that of "principal and agent" and if a "payment" is made. As the relationship between the assessee and the distributor was that of "principal to principal" and as the "discount" did not amount to a "payment", there was no liability to deduct TDS

Taking into account the provisions of Section 182 of the Contract Act and the arrangement which has been entered into between the company and the distributor and taking into account the provisions of Section 194H, the Tribunal while considering the evidence on record, in our considered opinion, has misdirected itself in considering the case from an angle other than the angle which was required to be considered by the Tribunal under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal has travelled beyond the provisions of Section 194H where the condition precedent is that the payment is to be made by the assessee and thereafter he is to make payment. In spite of our specific query to the counsel for the department, it was not pointed out that any amount was paid by the assessee company. It was only the arrangement by which the amount which was to be received was reduced and no amount was paid as commission

Top