BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Click here to view full judgement.
Pramod Kumar, Member (A) -
(1.) THESE two appeals, pertaining to the same assessee for two consecutive assessment years, call into question correctness of a common order dated 12th September 2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter demands under section 201 r.w.s. 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in respect of alleged lapses in not withholding tax at source from certain foreign remittances, and were heard together.
(2.) THE impugned orders in respect of the two assessment years, as passed by the Assessing Officer -TDS, are materially similar, but for variations in figures etc, and the appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is a consolidated order for both of these assessment years. As a matter of convenience, therefore, both of these appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. Grievances raised by the assessee -appellant, as set out in the respective memorandum of appeal, are as follows:
"Assessment year 2010 -11
1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the ACIT (TDS), Jabalpur u/s. 201 read with Sec. 195 of the IT Act and thereby confirming the demand of Rs. 1,40,10,757 raised on the appellant on account from non -deduction of tax on foreign remittances made for purchase of plant and machineries.
2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was unjustified in law and on facts in confirming the levy of interest u/s. 201(1A) of the IT Act even though the appellant had no liability to deduct tax at source in respect of foreign remittances made for purchase of plant and machineries.
3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the authorities below were wholly unjustified in holding that the gross amounts paid by the appellant to the foreign suppliers of the plant and machineries represented income of the Non Residents accrued in India and thereby upholding the AO's order in which he had held that the appellant should have deducted tax @ 42.25% of the gross remittance amounts.
(3.) FOR that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) misdirected himself in upholding the order of the AO by relying wholly on extraneous considerations; irrelevant materials; without properly appreciating the facts of the case and without correctly understanding specific legal provisions contained in the IT Act 1961 as also the relevant DTAAs and in that view of the matter the order passed by the CIT(A) be set aside and/or cancelled.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.