2009 (12) TMI 93

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1995-96. 1996-97, 1996-97, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1997-98 and 1995-96, raising the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether the appellant falls under the definition of person responsible for deduction of tax at source in terms of section 204 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in not holding that the appellant is an AOP within the meaning of section 2(31) of the Act and assessable as individual and consequently not liable for deduction of tax at source under section 194C/194-I of the Act? 3. Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in confirming the orders under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act when the same has been passed on the secretary/chairman and not on the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al other persons in connection with its business. Though such payments were made, the TDS was not recovered from the payments. Therefore, proceedings were initiated under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act on the ground that the assessee has failed to recover tax as deduction at source. The contention of the assessee is that it is a society and not a company or a juridical person and, therefore, it is contended that the assessee was not required to deduct the tax at source and requested the Assessing Officer to drop the proceedings. It is also contended that the payees to whom the payments were made by the assessee in their returns of income have shown the payments and have paid the tax on their income. Therefore, there is no ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee as a registered association under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, is required to deduct the tax at source or not and the said question can be left open giving liberty to challenge the same at an appropriate proceedings but not in these proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that in view of the judgment, in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 226, there was no occasion for the Assessing Officer to consider the collection of tax again from the present assessee. 8. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that all the orders, namely, the orders passed by the Assessing Officer which have been confirmed by the Commiss....