2016 (9) TMI 760

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ience. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had entered into an agreement with M/s Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) for the purpose of acquisition of land for Phase-I of the Metro Rail Project towards construction of piers/portals via duct across the precints of Bengaluru region and the charges payable to KIADB was fixed as 21%. The assessee had paid an amount of Rs. 1,225.00 Crores to M/s KIADB during the span of seven years for which the appeals are being decided by us. Subsequently, the rate of service charges was revised to 4% vide copy of order dated 21-06-2012 and a High Powered Committee constituted by the Government of Karnataka held that 4% rate of service charges is on higher side and that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed on the following judicial pronouncements; i) E.D Sason & Co., Ltd Vs CIT 26 ITR 27(SC) ii)Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co Vs CIT 46 ITR 144(SC) iii) CIT Vs Birla Gwalior Pvt.Ltd 89 ITR 266(SC) iv) CIT Vs WExcel Industries Ltd., 358 ITR 295(SC) v) State Bank of Travancore Vs CIT 158 ITR 102(SC) vi) Morvi Industries Ltd., Vs CIT 82 ITR 835 (SC) vii) Godhara Electricity Co.Ltd.,CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) viii) M/s P.G & W.Sawoo Pv.Ltd., Vs ACIT in Civil appeal No.4091 of 2016 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.6384 of 2009 dated 19/04/2016. Reliance on these judgments was placed in support of this contention that the income tax is a tax on income and income has to be real income only ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the revenue supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 6. We have considered rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce the finding of the ld.CIT(A) which are contained in para-4.3 and 5 of his order.. "4.3 From the cited judicial decisions, it is evident that interest u/s 201(1A) is to be levied if an assessee does not deduct the whole or part of tax. In the instant case, since the appellant did not deduct any tax from payments made to KIADB for services rendered by it to the appellant, it is held that the AO was right in levying interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act, on the appellant. Hence appeal on this grounds fails. 5. The other issue in the appeal is whether the AO was correct in holding 21% as the rate paid by the appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8 for the AY: 2002-03 is barred by limitation as the period of limitation would be four years from the end of the financial year in question. Respectfully following this judgment, we hold that in the present case also, the orders passed after the end of the financial year in question is time barred and hence the same is quashed. Such time barred orders are four i.e AY: 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. Remaining three orders for AY: 2011-12 to 2013-14 are not time barred even as per this judgment as these orders are passed in the month of March & April 2014.i.e before expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in question. Accordingly, we quash these four orders as time barred for AY: 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11.....