TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (10) TMI 449
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs dt.11th Dec., 2003. The Tribunal likewise rejected the further appeals filed by the Revenue in terms of the impugned order dt.3rd April, 2006. Succinctly stated the duty is cast under Section 201(1) of the IT Act to deduct tax at source within the prescribed time and at the prescribed rate, and if there is a failure on this score the assessed is liable to pay the income-tax together with intere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als filed by the Revenue by impugned order dt. 20th Sept., 2005 interalia applying the decisions of this Court in IT Appeal Nos. 906 of 2006 and 909 of 2006 titled as CIT v. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd., decided on 10th July, 2006 reported at (2006) 206 CTR (Del) 499-Ed. The Bench comprising Madan B. Lokur and Vipin Sanghi, JJ. observed as follows: In our view, firstly, there is no justificati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, even after payment of the tax. Thirdly, we find that the said issue was not the one raised before the Tribunal. We have already set out the ground of appeal raised before the Tribunal. Notice has also been drawn to the decision in CIT v. Majestic Hotel Ltd. (2006) 204 CTR (Del) 330 : (2006) 155 Taxman 447 (Del). The Bench comprising T.S. Thakur and Shiv Narayan Dhingra, JJ. observed as follows....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is immaterial whether the tax is paid by the deductee or the assessed who had made the deduction. What is significant is that the interest which is compensatory in character is paid to the Revenue till the date the amount of tax is.actually deposited. That is precisely what has been done in the instant case. The question framed earlier is answered accordingly. 3. It has been vehemently contende....