TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n holding the assessee to be in default under Section 201(1) ignoring the CBDT Circular No.275/201/95-IT(B) dated 29.1.1997 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision reported in 293 ITR 226 clarifying that recovery could not once again be made from deductor where the payee included the income on which tax was alleged to have been short deducted in its taxable income and paid taxes thereon ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee ought to have deducted tax on the entire payments made to M/s.Tamil Nadu Real Estates Ltd., and not only on the remuneration paid to them ? 3. The following are the reframed substantial questions of law raised in T.C.(A) No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sequently, the terms of the agreement were modified and approved by both the assessee and TNREL on 17.5.1995 and 31.5.1995 respectively in their Board meetings . As per the terms of the modified agreement, the assessee would construct the building with technical assistance from TNREL, who would also incur the expenses on behalf of the assessee and get them reimbursed from the assessee. 6. The Assessing Officer proceeded that the assessee had acted upon the terms of the agreement dated 1.11.1994 and therefore they should have deducted the tax at source at 2% on the entire cost of construction. Thus, the Assessing Officer raised a demand under Section 201(1) and also charged interest under Section 201(1A) . 7. Aggrieved by the order passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee in default" for not deducting the tax at source when they made payment to TNREL. Consequently, the levy of interest was also made under Section 201(1A) of the Act. However, he does not dispute the applicability of the decision reported in (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) (Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P.Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) to the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. We heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. 11. The Tribunal found that the assessee is obliged under Section 194C to deduct tax at source on contract payments as and when such payments exceed Rs.20,000/- and to pay such TDS to the Government account within one week from the last date of the month in which deduction is made. It is also found by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion was accepted by the Tribunal. It was held that though the assessee therein was held to be as assessee in default, there could be no recovery of the tax alleged to be in default once again from the assessee therein considering the fact that the recipient had already paid the tax on the amount received from the assessee. The said order of the Tribunal was challenged before the High Court which in turn interfered with the same. Further appeal came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the said appeal, the Apex Court found that the Tribunal came to the right conclusion that the tax once again could not be recovered from the appellant therein since the tax has already been paid by the recipient of the income. The Apex Court also relied on....