TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 1066
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2 That the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciating the materials on the record and facts of the case. 3 That the order of Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case and is, thus untenable. 4 That the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in passing a non speaking order in violation of the principals of Natural Justice. 5 The Assessing Officer erroneous, arbitrary and without any justification imposed interest demand u/s 201(1A) of the Act on the short deduction of tax from the due date of the deduction of tax at source to date of filing of income tax return by the deductee amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the earlier agreement and separate agreement on account of maintenance and service charges was entered. Maintenance charges were negotiated at Rs. 11.4 per sqft and such maintenance cannot be covered u/s 194-I. Reference was also made to CBDT Circular No. 275/201/95- IT(B) dated 29.1.1997 according to which no demand can be imposed u/s 201 (1) if the assessee is able to satisfy the authorities that taxes have been paid by the deductees. The Assessing Officer did not find force in these submissions and referred to various clauses in the lease deed and held that it was a composite agreement through which assessee obtained the premises and rent along with certain services and therefore the assessee was supposed to deduct taxes u/s 194-I. Howe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2,236,824 12,236,824 2007-08 83,203,759 -- 11,656,340 11,656,340 2008-09 57,332,055 -- 10,660,483 10,660,483 The Ld. CIT(A) did not find any force in the same and dismissed the appeal vide para 5 which is as under: "I have considered the submission of the Ld. Counsel. The appellant agrees that the maintenance of building and other facilities are part of rent and so tax was required to be deducted @ 22.66% u/s 194-I of the Act. Thus there is no dispute about the rate at which tax should have been deducted. The only plea of the Ld. Counsel is that the deductee had paid the tax and so interest u/s 201 (1A) should not be charged. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 46 taxmann.com 200 (Agra Bench) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board V ITO (TDS), 18 taxmann.com 150 (Mumbai Bench) 6 On the other hand, the Ld. D.R for the revenue strongly supported the order of Assessing Officer. He further submitted that the details regarding losses and refund of the deductee, if due, were not furnished before the Assessing Officer. 7 We have considered the rival submissions carefully and find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd V CIT (supra) has held as under: "Without deciding the question whether the Appellate Tribunal could have reopened the appeal for rectifying an error apparent on the record, that in view of Circular No. 275/201/95-IT(B) dated Jan29, 1997,....