TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1279
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to be an assessee in default under Section 220 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "the Act") and a total demand of tax of Rs. 17,42,97,709/- was made for the assessment years from 2010-2011 to 2014-2015. The demand was made with the allegation that the assessee failed to make TDS under Section 194(H) of the Act on the brokerage/commission paid to its dealers. The case of the assessee is that no commission / brokerage has been paid to its dealers and the transaction of the petitioner with the agents/dealers is one of selling the services at a discount and the discount amount cannot be treated as commission or brokerage, and hence, the question of making any TDS itself would not arise. However, the petitioner admits that for the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Koundinya, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court submits that the main issue itself is on board before the Supreme Court, and in fact, the matter is set for hearing on 10.09.2015 as a first case. Considering the fact that there are conflicting judgments of Calcultta, Kerala and Delhi High Courts holding in favour of the Revenue and the judgment of Karnataka High Court which was held in favour of the assessee, the issue is fluid and has not attained finality. In the circumstances, when these matters came up for admission on 09.02.2015, this Court adjourned them to 18.03.2015 taking into consideration the fact that the matters are being heard by the Supreme Court. Later....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in favour of the Revenue. In that view of the matter, the learned Standing Counsel prays to dismiss the writ petitions. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. A careful reading of the judgments in I.T.T.A.No. 291 of 2013 and other appeals reveals that this Court did not discuss facts of the case, but merely affirmed the order of the Tribunal by following the judgment of Delhi High Court reported in C.I.T. v. Idea Cellular Ltd. 325 ITR 148 DEL, judgment of Kerala High Court in Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. v. ACIT 332 ITR 255 Kerala and the judgment of Calcutta in Bharti Cellular v. ACIT 244 CTR 185 Cal. The judgment of this Court in I.T.T.A.No. 291 of 2013 is dated 17.07.2013. Later, the Karna....