2013 (5) TMI 45 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules in favor of company, no liability for royalty payment cancellation under Income Tax Act.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND INCOME TAX OFFICER Versus WIPRO HEALTHCARE IT LTD.

The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision that the company was not a defaulter under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act as the agreement for ... Default U/s 201(1) & Interest U/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act - TDS on royalty - Held that:- The Tribunal held that once the agreement itself is cancelled, consequential payment of royalty also stood cancelled - For the entire period from inception up to 30th July 2002 there was no liability for making payment on behalf of the assessee - When there is no liability to pay royalty and consequential interest, there was no liability to deduct TDS. It is clear that agreement with regard to payment of royalty was cancelled, no royalty was payable and therefore, the question of deducting TDS on such royalty does not arise. These facts are not in dispute - Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal is correct. Issues:- Whether the company can be considered a defaulter under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act.- Whether consequential interest under Section 201(1A) is leviable.- Whether the order passed by the Tribunal was correct.Analysis:1. The primary issue in this case was whether the company could be regarded as a defaulter under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act and if consequential interest under Section 201(1A) was leviable. The Tribunal held that the company could not be considered a defaulter as the agreement regarding royalty payment had been cancelled, and hence, no liability existed for making the payment. The Assessing Officer's order demanding tax and interest was based on the premise that only the payment of royalty was cancelled, not the agreement itself. The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that since there was no liability to pay royalty and interest, there was no obligation to deduct TDS. The Tribunal found that the authorities below had erred in holding the company liable and allowed the appeal, granting relief to the assessee.2. The second issue revolved around the cancellation of the agreement regarding royalty payment. The Tribunal concluded that once the agreement itself was cancelled, the consequential payment of royalty was also cancelled. The Tribunal emphasized that from the inception of the agreement until a certain date, there was no liability for the company to make the royalty payment. This crucial finding led to the determination that there was no requirement to deduct TDS on the royalty payment. The Tribunal found that the authorities below had made a serious error in holding the company liable and, therefore, passed the impugned order in favor of the assessee.3. The final issue pertained to the correctness of the Tribunal's order. The High Court, after examining the material on record, affirmed the Tribunal's decision. It was established that the agreement concerning royalty payment had been cancelled, rendering the question of TDS deduction moot. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings that there was no liability for the company to pay royalty, leading to the conclusion that the order passed by the Tribunal was correct. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the cancellation of the agreement regarding royalty payment absolved the company of any liability, including the requirement to deduct TDS. The judgment serves as a significant precedent in clarifying the tax implications in cases where agreements are cancelled, impacting the obligation to make payments and deductions under the Income Tax Act.