TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 727
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lding that the assessee was not liable to deduct any tax at source on interest accrued on FDRs held by the Jammu Development Authority relying on the Notification No.3489 dated 22.10.1970. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact the Jammu Development Authority is not a Corporation but a local Authority and is also filing its return of income in the status of Local Authority. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that in view of the amendment made in section 10(2) w.e.f. 01.10.2003 the benefits conferred by clause (20A) on such authority was taken away. 4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, amend, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing." 2. At the ti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lopment Authority has not been established by a Central, State or Provincial Act and is rather a body formed under the Jammu & Kashmir Development Act, 1970. The distinction between a corporate body established by a Central or State or Provincial Act and a body formed under a State Act was duly explained to the Hon'ble Bench by taking steely support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalco Engineering Private Ltd. vs. Shree Satish Prabhakar Padhye & Others in Civil Appeal No.1886 of 2007 dated 31.3.2010. It was further explained that the order of the Hon'ble Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of Chief/Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. ITO (TDS & Survey) dated 15.07.2011 also contained a mistake in as much....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the department is in the processing of filing a Misc. Application in this case and alternatively the mistake as pointed out can be suo moto rectified by the Hon'ble Bench and then this appeal can be taken up for hearing. Sd/- (Tarsem Lal) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, ITAT, Amritsar." 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Revenue authorities as well as the order of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench, dated 24.04.2012 in the case of ITO (TDS), Jammu vs. The Branch Manager, The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. Jammu in ITA Nos. 206 to 210(Asr)/2011 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-2011. It is a matter of record that in the present appeals, the Revenue has raised exactly similar grounds of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Commerce vs. ITO (TDS & Survey) Ghaziabad, passed in ITA No2228/Del/2011 for the A.Y. 2005-06, dated 15.07.2011. We also find that the department has raised exactly similar grounds in the present appeals, as decided by the ITAT Delhi Bench. Therefore, we have to follow the decision rendered by the ITAT, Delhi Bench (supra) and have respectfully been followed by this Bench vide order dated 24.04.2012. 4.2. The Ld. DR has also exceeded his jurisdiction by commenting upon the decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench (supra) by stating in the said written submissions that that order also carries mistakes and omissions and if this Bench follow the order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench (supra), it would amount to committing again a mistake. He further stated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench, in the case of Chief/Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. ITO (TDS & Survey), Ghaziabad, ITA No.2228/Del/2011 for the assessment year 2005-06, dated 15.7.2011 and find that exactly similar issue, which is in dispute, before us, has already been adjudicated and decided in favour of the assessee, by the said decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench 'I'. For the sake of convenience, the order passed by the ITAT, Delhi Bench 'I' (supra) is reproduced as under: "ITA No.2228/Del/2011 for the A.Y. 2005-06, dated 15.7.2011 Chief/Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ghaziabad vs. ITO (TDS & Survey) Ghaziabad. This appeal filed by the assessee arises out of the order of the CIT(Appeals) Ghaziabad dated 01.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for matter ancillary thereto and it was also pleaded that Ghaziabad Development Authority has been established under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1993, therefore, it is a Corporation established by a State Act which is covered by Entry No.39. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have heard both the sides and after hearing, we hold that Ghaziabad Development Authority and Ganga Jal Pani Pariyojna are in exempted category where the provisions of section 194(1) are not applicable. In view of this matter, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and allow the assessee's appeal." 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6.1. Thus, respe....